Staredit Network

7-7 Theroyetcly,anything can become a Black Hole.If the sun mass were to be the size of Everest from the base to the top and all the volume into it,or smaller.The gravity would be inense enough to make it a small black hole.

Also,whoever said a large Black Hole last forever is wrong,it will just takes trillions of years for it to burn out

Well, if time slows down because of the gravity, and the black hole is basically a large force of gravity? That meens it would last longer than it should. So it could die instantly, but appear to last much longer to our preception?

I think this topic is amazing .

Crap!

I had a really long and interesting post describing entropy and why hawking radiation is as it is, unfortunately, my explorer froze when I hit the post button.

Sorry

That sucks . I'm on dial up so I know how you feel.

On topic: I don't think it is a smart thing to create a black hole on Earth... instantly die or live for ever, we don't know enough about black holes to be making them...

So it seems you guys already know that this immense amount of gravity across the event horizon can suck in the light. It seems that people misconcept this "time stopping dillusion" because the material that crosses the event horizon from the outsider's view would stop in place. ( Because the light that is being reflected off of the material is ultimately being sucked inside the black hole, thus you would only see the material stop in place. ) But in reality, it never stopped. It just crossed the event horizon, and the light just became infinately curved either or sucked in. And of course, that material would soon join whatever is inside black hole. ( Most likely squeezing the extra material inside the black hole, resulting ultimately in a super dense material, whether singularity or not ) i.e ) Gravity doesn't slow down or effect time.

A black hole is a large piece of gravity inside a small piece of space. Although most gravity you would know would be the collapsed core of a massive star.

If we shot a material toward a black hole, it wouldn't be recognized as the material we shot to the black hole by the time it reached the event horizon. Because of its already tidal gravity force before the event horizon, any material would be crushed into bits before getting to the event horizon. Because the gravity effecting the material is great and greater from every nanometer, the material would stretch, and be ultimately be trillions of seperate atoms thats going to be sucked inside the black hole.

When I made my posts, of course I knew this would happen, you or I could not possibly orbit near the event hotizon wihout being torn to bits, and being sucked in. my point is, if you put a muon (a particle that decays at a certain and exact rate) on the event horizon of a black hole, the muon would decay insantly, it would be gone in no time(literally). However it is easier to imagine yourself sitting very close to a black hole as all the time in the universe suddenly slows to a halt. Wait, is that backwards? I'm too tired to think about this, I'll (possibly) edit my post in the morning.

EDIT: I was backwards

Ok, here it is Stephen Hawking's example of what an observer would see a collapsing star do.


in other words, if you fall into a black hole, the instant you hit the event horizon you would instantly reach the end of time, which is apparently; undefined. That is why the equations are screwed up.

ADDITION:

I'm not on dialup, microsoft is a crappy company that makes crappy programs that work perfectly one day, then fail the next.

Ya but Dial up always causes me to do those things, thus I know how you feel .


By that, you didn't meen it disappears, right? Isn't there a Law of Conservation of Matter or something where matter can not be created nor destroy, only changed in form. So wouldn't that meen that its not actually 'gone'?

That law can be broken. With fission. Remember Einstein's E=mc² equation.

Of course its not GONE! Imagine the black hole as a snowball. And mass keeps going to that ball. The ball increases in mass by that mass. In the rate of increase in Density, the volume increase is small.

7-7, in theory, any object can be turned into a black hole. A black hole is matter fitted into some space, that is too small for the "size" of matter. A black hole was once a star. The matter of that star existed without turning into a black hole while it had fusion. It is just a comparison. The same way, an electron could exist normally before getting crushed... The star example doesen't mean that the creation of a black hole requires some amount of initial mass.


If a black hole doesen't consume any matter for a long amount of time, it looses matter an atom at a time. Voyager posted a Wiki quote about this once, I'm just too lazy to find it

What would happen if a black hole sucked in a star (or vice versa, depending on which had more gravitational pull)? I believe that would be interesting to view to say the least.

To me these black holes always looked a bit theoretical. There might be black holes of some kind but how would you know what their 'aspects' or 'behavior' are? (Yes, my english isn't good but I hope you can understand me).

So to me these things work aslong as they popup in a movie to get people do unnatural things and so on in movies.

But in reallife it's just alot of theory to me.

I've already said that; numerous times, but it isn't helping him.

Hmm.. I've always wondered about something. Is it possible for a black hole to accumulate some much matter that the force of the matter inside it could 'tear open' the black hole?

Let me put it this way: The world is a spring, the black hole is a hand pushing on the spring. The hand can keep pushing down on this endless spring, but at one point, the force of the spring(pressurized-matter) over powers the force of the hand(black hole's gravity).

Is that a possible case?

Is your "spring" equivelant to the electromagnetic force?

The electromagnetic force is a lot stronger then gravity but it only works at short distances. That is why when you slam your fist on the table it doesn't go right through. In a black hole, the amount of matter, as well as the charges in the atoms canceling each other out, causes gravity to overcome it.

ADDITION:
Wait a second, are you referring to the atoms (with motion) attempting to use their energy, but that energy would overcome gravity.

Unfortunately, no. In order to escape a black hole you would need infinite energy, also, by sitting in a black hole you would (as I said a few posts ago) reach the end of time (which is undefined). No matter how high energy your matter has it will never escape.

BUT: what can happen, is the high amounts of entropy(too much energy being stuck in too little matter) can cause energy to be converted into matter, what happens is: particles and antiparticles appear around the black hole, the vast majority instantly inihilate each other, and the energy gets sucked back in. Once in a while, they appear right on the event horizon, one gets sucked in, and anihilates another particle in the black hole, boosting the other one, which flies off. This is known as Hawking Radiation. The accelerator being built at CERN will create a very small; high entropy black hole, and test for the very specific particles flying off.

The reason a black hole is screwed up, is because it's like activating a time machine that goes waaaaaaay into the future, and never knowing whether or not it worked. If you were to try and enter the time machine, you could never escape it.

Ahh... okay then, I get it now. Well, that sucks.

If we could create a antiparticle equivalant to 10,000,000 tons a second and be able to divert it into a black hole we could make a massive energy storm! ( possibly taking millions of planets around it ) I'd love it! A NEW WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
erm that was an imagination.

In theory, our galactic nuclei might be a super massive black hole or a quasar.

uhhh, 6 things:

1: building a large black hole made of regular matter would be just as effective, and would have the same effect.

2: It would suck in the entire planet, not just individual countries(it would suck in you)

3: An antimatter black hole weighing tens of thousands of tons would take, well, an awful long time, we make about a nanogram a year currently.

4: Creating that much antimatter would take immense(E=mc[squared]) amounts of energy.

5: All the antimatter you make makes both antimatter and regular matter, which normally inihilate each other instantly.

6: If you want a weapon of mass destruction involving antimatter, why not just build an antimatter bomb.

This is in serious discussion! You're trying to blow up an atom bomb using a match. It won't work.

fiftieth...post....

Waah! My theory about black holes are that they're really some ENTIRELY huge mass way beyond our intelligence that collapsed in on itself to create a reverse gravity of itself. Thus, reversing the gravity, will only defy physics, and it gives an even greater effect. A black hole will freeze everything in its path in the eye of a human, but really, inside that black hole times going on alright. I think the masses and other stuff created a barrier un-penetreable by the human eye, thus causing us to see a frozen image. If time stops in the black hole, then possibly it doesn't exsist.

Err.right.

Scientists also said that there are "white holes" that "spit" out objects--possibly merging the two might create wormholes.

White holes are only theoratical. They werent proved yet.

A white hole? I'm incredibly up-to-date with physics. Why haven't I heard of one of these?

And a wormhole is just a rip in the fabric of space and time.

This isn't Stargate SG-1 and you aren't Richard Dean Anderson.

ah, it's from a fictional TV show, no wonder.

let's get back on-topic.

White holes have been mentioned in physics laser.There just not as popular.In theory if connected to a black hole would spew out matter/slight.Which in turn is a one way worm-hole.

These are theories. Theory are not yet proven enough. White holes to date do not exist. And even wormholes arent proved.