Black Holes

sterling1970 · Feb 1, 2008

"First of all"...?? ***intentional bypassing of the profanity filter deleted*** weeman? THAT IS WHY I SAID "IF" you sorry ***ad hominem deleted***! AND I am SO sorry for calling it "streams of light"..(when in fact that is what it LOOKS LIKE) especially since NO ONE KNOWS ANYWAY FOR CERTAIN!!...... so stating, "First of all" and your attitude through your whole, but short, paragraph, indicates that you are nothing but an ***ad hominem deleted***. Go bury your head in the sand somewhere.....

telfrow · Feb 1, 2008

sterling1970 You have a private message. Please click on the flashing icon next to "Main Menu." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

shadow735 · Feb 1, 2008

One thing about the board is you cant really know a persons attitude in reference to what they type. Text isnt a great conveyor of emotion (unless you are a writer) I wouldnt read to deep into how people type and answer questions. Plus I have learned to not take things to heart ont he board as some subjects can and do get pretty heated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 1, 2008

Well that was uncalled for.!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

brigandier · Feb 1, 2008

Wow.. um.. Where did that come from? o.o??

Mee_n_Mac · Feb 1, 2008

@ weeman .... Just wanted to add to what the 3 prior posters said .... there's nothing in your repsonse, no "attitude" that I can see, that called for, or even hinted at, the kind of reply you got. I thought you posted a pretty straight-forward answer to the questions posed. Don't be discouraged. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

weeman · Feb 1, 2008

Discouraged? That just made my day! I was laughing the whole time I read his reply. I think I'll go have a bowl of ice cream in celebration <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Oh and thanks for your support. The reason that this board is so nice to be on is that MOST OF US (wink wink) can have civilized debates, learning a lot from each other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

alokmohan · Feb 2, 2008

But if breaks into quark it becomes a quark star ,not black hole.

weeman · Feb 2, 2008

Hmmm....I know almost nothing about quark stars. Have we ever actually seen one or are they just theory? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

derekmcd · Feb 2, 2008

Pretty sure that it is still only hypothetical <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 2, 2008

It really makes no difference. Whether Quarks, neutrons, protons, dark matter....it makes no difference what it started out as. When it becomes a black hole (because of density, not mass, or what it was made of) it is a singularity. What it was a microsecond before makes no difference; it's just mass crammed in a very tiny space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

derekmcd · Feb 3, 2008

I'm not quite sure of the point you are making or what it is in reference to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 3, 2008

Sorry for the confusion, my reply was directed to alokmohan, I clicked on your post by mistake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Saiph · Feb 10, 2008

I'll throw my 2 cents in: First, about the belief that objects cannot cross the event horizon because time stops there. This is an erroneous belief, as it disregards the concept of frames of reference. To the outside observer, the time for the falling object stops at the event horizon, however for the object, time keeps on trucking. So we never see the object cross the horizon, but it does cross. To be honest, we don't even see it get that far, as the light from the object is redshifted way off any detectable scale by that point. The jet streams from the poles of BH's are, as weeman said, from the accretion disk, not the BH itself. The gas we see spouting from the poles are particles that had a close call, and with the aid of the BH's rotation, and the funneling effect of the magnetic field, jet off in a highly colliimated beam at near-light speeds. On singularities within the event horizon: Our current understanding of physics dictates that there is no other possibility, that materials compressed to densities sufficient to generate an event horizon have no internal force capable of withstanding their own gravity. This includes the Pauli Exclusion principle, and light speed restrictions on vibrations, the main supporting forces of neutron stars and white dwarfs respectively. There may be something other than a singularity, but current quantum mechanics has no notion of what it could be. <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>

jgreimer · Feb 11, 2008

Saiph: "First, about the belief that objects cannot cross the event horizon because time stops there. This is an erroneous belief, as it disregards the concept of frames of reference. To the outside observer, the time for the falling object stops at the event horizon, however for the object, time keeps on trucking. So we never see the object cross the horizon, but it does cross. To be honest, we don't even see it get that far, as the light from the object is redshifted way off any detectable scale by that point." I'm willing to accept that objects can cross the event horizon if I can understand how it happens. When you say that the object does cross the event horizon I assume you mean before the black hole evaporates from Hawking radiation. Yes, I understand that to distant observers the object would appear to stop at the horizon if we could still see it. So let's consider the frame of reference of the object. If the object does indeed cross the event horizon then we should be able to calculate exactly when that occurs not only in the object's frame of reference but also in the reference of relatively unwarped spacetime. Suppose there were an enormous clock such as a rotating galaxy visible from the event horizon. As the infalling object approaches the event horizon, an observer on the object could estimate how much time has passed for the rest of the universe by measuring how far the galaxy has rotated. (Yes I'm aware that the center of the galaxy rotates much faster than the edge but that still doesn't preclude it from being used as a clock) To the infalling object its life will indeed be very short, but during that time it should see the universe age very quickly. If I were to specify an event horizon radius, a starting distance from the event horizon and a starting velocity, perhaps you would be able to calculate how long it would take for the object to cross the horizon as measured by the galactic clock? "In 2007, Case Western Re

alokmohan · Feb 11, 2008

Frozen star and collapsing star are the same thing.If you mame it frozen star these are relevant.We may discuss frozen star first.

enigma10 · Feb 11, 2008

If time stops anywhere in the universe, then does that place cease to exist, therefore making time irrelevant and thus unable to define it as anything, especially the aspect of time ,within that place? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

siarad · Feb 11, 2008

It seems to me for the participant time runs normally, only an outside observer sees a remote change of time i.e. we see time stop at the event horizon but the falling object doesn't. The clock in SatNav satellites seems to be running slower to us on Earth but not to it else the transmitter frequency would be continuosly falling. (a question I've asked here but hopfully have now resolved after much thinking)

alokmohan · Feb 12, 2008

Time slows down in high gravity.Near a black hole time slows down.

zarnic · Apr 6, 2008

Do those pesky black holes ever go away, and if they do what happens to whategver has been captured? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles. A. Van Buren, 1978 * An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys. -- according to Van Roy </div>

Saiph · Apr 7, 2008

The answer depend on if stephen hawking was right, or not, about "hawking radiation."Basically, if he's right, then there is a way for black holes to slowly (very slowly) radiate their matter outwards in a sort of random, thermal process.  You're looking at an insanely long lifespan for a BH, but they will eventually dissipate.  The emitted matter will just spread out and act like normal matter. If he's wrong...then there is no method currently devised to cause a BH to diminish. <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>

MeteorWayne · Apr 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The answer depend on if stephen hawking was right, or not, about "hawking radiation."Basically, if he's right, then there is a way for black holes to slowly (very slowly) radiate their matter outwards in a sort of random, thermal process.  You're looking at an insanely long lifespan for a BH, but they will eventually dissipate.  The emitted matter will just spread out and act like normal matter. If he's wrong...then there is no method currently devised to cause a BH to diminish. Posted by Saiph</DIV> And I should point out that if Hawking radiation exists, a planet sized mass black hole would last longer than the Universe is likely to... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

weeman · Apr 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do those pesky black holes ever go away, and if they do what happens to whategver has been captured? Posted by zarnic</DIV> Hawking believes that black holes can eventually radiate into nothing. If the universe is doomed to expand forever, then it is likely that the last massive celestial bodies will be black holes. Hawking also believes that information is destroyed in black holes; he has often been ridiculed by other physicists for this statement.But when it really comes down to it, we have no way of knowing whether or not information can actually be destroyed.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

pyoko · Apr 9, 2008

Does Hawking Radiation have anything at all to do with why micro-singularities produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays or the ones we are going to make in the LHC don't last more than a fraction of a second? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

derekmcd · Apr 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does Hawking Radiation have anything at all to do with why micro-singularities produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays or the ones we are going to make in the LHC don't last more than a fraction of a second? Posted by pyoko</DIV>Yes it does.  It is assumed to be a natural, reduntant safety feature.  The main reason, though, folks at CERN are not concerned about the safety of these possible black holes is their size.  They will be far too small to interact with any matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Black Holes

sterling1970

Guest

telfrow

Guest

shadow735

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

brigandier

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

weeman

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

weeman

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jgreimer

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

enigma10

Guest

siarad

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

zarnic

Guest

Saiph

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

weeman

Guest

pyoko

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page