Ok... Gravity makes small dents in space time. So causually because stars have a lot of gravity they make huge dents in space-time. So what if somehow we "lasso" a black hole and bring it close enough to us but farther away from it sucking radius. Would space time become straight? And what would happen if space-time is straight?
oh and in respond to your question: i don't think it's that simple, there are many factors involved, and I think it would be a little hard to "lasso" a balckhole...just a little hard...but then again i might be wrong. As for time and space being straight...i don't know, there is a lot that is till not known about the universe.
The only thing you can lassoo a blackhole with(to move it in any reasonable timeframe) is a larger object. I would suggest redirecting a large star of atleast 20 solar masses so as to capture the black hole in orbit around it. Tricky but celestial mechanics is only being applied to two bodies so this is well within the boundaries of modern mathematical calculations. Then steer your sun to where you want it. You would need a fairly advanced spacefaring civilisation to lend a hand. We are talking chocco engineering. Maybe a reflector mirror thousands of square kilometres in area to reflect sunlight back at the star. Possibly seeding it on one side with a trillion or so 60 megaton hydrogen bombs. Asking it nicely to change velocity and direction? I don't know. Prayer power success to failure rate has mixed reports. Would it straighten space time? No. It would bend it out of shape. Black Holes dont make a dent in space time. They smash a hole right through it. Think of them as water going down a plughole. Every major Galaxy has a central supermassive Black hole. Thats why Galaxies look like soap suds going down the drain. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Black-holes are really holes "A Study has Shown They are black because light can't escape once inside the the event horizon. They are holes because they have no surface, only a sphere of influence, beyond which nothing can get out. That's the theory of black holes. In reality, it's been difficult to prove the "hole" part. But, A new study by Christine Done and Marek Gierlinski of the University of Durham in the UK provides some clues... The study compared known(suspected?) black holes to neutron stars, the densest objects known except for black holes. Neutron stars do have a surface, and incoming matter bounces off of it. Both neutron stars and black holes generate copious amounts of X-rays as matter is accelerated to significant fractions of the speed of light as it spirals toward the objects. The researchers analyzed six years of data from NASA's orbiting Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, comparing characteristics of energy output as sources grew brighter and dimmer over time." "What we see is that neutron stars and black holes behave in distinctly different ways as more material falls onto them," Done says, "and the only big difference we know of that can account for the observations is that neutron stars have a surface, while black holes don't." As for white holes ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A white hole is just a time reversed black hole. Take the Schwarzschild metric for example. In the maximal geometry you chart four spacetime regions which correspond to two real regions outside membranes, one black hole and one white hole. The white hole is unlikely to be a realistic physical solution however, unless it came into existence with the beginning of the universe. The reason is that for the same reason that a classical black hole can't die, a classical white hole can't be born. (note - I haven't seen an attempted time reversal of the Hawking mechanism to begin a white hole). I should point out that you shouldn't make the mistake of suggesting that the original big bang may have been a white hole, because white holes spew stuff out. The two beasties are very different looking in relativity. The Big Bang was definitely not a white hole. Hope this helps! The Chicken
Hum, A white hole is just a time reversed black hole? Perhaps this may be <b>ok</b> on paper , the reality of such things are highly dubous...(<i>like white elephants</i>?). I could at this point, predict a <b>grey-hole</b>... a `hole` in space that does not absorb nor emit anything... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, classical black hole <i>can</i> die, slowly, by absorbing one half of a pair of virtual particles, until it disappears...
Yep. No one asked whether a white hole was physically realisable, just what it was. Sure. You might want to review what is involved in "predicting" a white hole or black hole. Generally you don't just make up a cool name and a few properties... the physics community generally requires a little more stringent description. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm sure I wrote the word "classical" nearly a dozen times to specifically rule out consideration of the Hawking result. I should point out that the Hawking result is not universally agreed upon. I read a recent paper which purports to suggest there is no solid technical grounding for the effect (I disagree with that, but it's an interesting paper).
wouldn't a "grey hole" just be empty space? not emiting or absorbing anything, just allowing the passage of matter through it as if nothing special was going on? maybe a grey hole would be a point in space where virtual poarticles couldn't be spontainiously created/distroyed.
Supermassive black holes... ...destroy the space-time if gravity iis strong enough,and that's only possible in supermassive black holes. More mass=more gravity=more destruction of space-time.
Supermassive black holes... ...destroy the space-time if gravity iis strong enough,and that's only possible in supermassive black holes. More mass=more gravity=more destruction of space-time.
Re: Supermassive black holes... More curvature of space-time. It's not "destroyed". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you want to do some spacetime engineering, using black holes, I am not sure that you need massive stars as tugs; (although that would probably work)... First you need to make sure your black hole doesn't evaporate... if it is more than 10[sup]11[/sup] tonnes it will be stable, and not evaporate in a ridiculously small timescale. This is the mass of a small asteroid. If you pump charged particles into your black hole, it becomes charged itself and can be moved using electromagnetic fields; if you spin it rapidly, say by suspending an electric motor in a ring around it (some people call this a Dyson Motor) (not as easy as it sounds, as the ring will tend to fall into the event horizon) then the space immediately outside the spinning black hole event horizon rotates as well, and this effect should be useful when you want to manipulate the black hole. Perhaps you could roll it along a flat surface under its own power? __________________ SF worldbuilding at http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
Re: Re: Supermassive black holes... More you strrecth space-time it's bigger change for space-time getting destroyed.
white hole certainly a white hole is a time reversal of a black hole but I think the 'time reversal' scenario as even more stupid than the white elephant scenario, I also tend to see the late stages of BH evaporation as a white hole as particle emmission from the black hole increases exponentially. This is assuming that particle creation does in fact exist (contrary to recent suggestions that if particle creation was real then the light we see from distant galaxies would be more distorted than we see it) but WHO knows?
