where does the matter/energy go after passing the event horizon? is that correct terminology there? im not very well lerned when it comes down to western science and space,

so where does the energy go after passing into the black hole? it mus go somewhere right,

white holes spewing time and matter back?

quantum theorys explain this maybe? the "stream of eternal force/energy in a 5th dimention, maybe it goes there?,



peace.

where does the matter/energy go after passing the event horizon?

It goes to the centre of the hole - the singularity. What happens to it then, nobody knows. What we do know, though, is that all matter falling into the hole adds to the mass of the hole, so the hole "knows" how much stuff has fallen into it.

white holes spewing time and matter back?

No white holes have ever been observed in our universe.

It goes to the centre of the hole - the singularity. What happens to it then, nobody knows. What we do know, though, is that all matter falling into the hole adds to the mass of the hole, so the hole "knows" how much stuff has fallen into it.



No white holes have ever been observed in our universe.



yeah im aware of some of this type of behaviour with black holes, they are even suspected to consume other black holes, and form super black holes, they form fromt he collapsing of a super star right?, and they have the mass and energy level of the star to begin with, then gradually they grow in mass, kind of eating and putting on weight so to speak, sonsuming stars planets etc, but!

if something eats something else, then uses its energy to bulk up, wouldent it produce waste? or have a "need" for sucking everything up. it wouldent do it for a random reason, there must be good reason for this right?.





and yes the white hole ting i was just theorising,



peace,

yeah im aware of some of this type of behaviour with black holes, they are even suspected to consume other black holes, and form super black holes, they form fromt he collapsing of a super star right?, and they have the mass and energy level of the star to begin with, then gradually they grow in mass, kind of eating and putting on weight so to speak, sonsuming stars planets etc, but!

if something eats something else, then uses its energy to bulk up, wouldent it produce waste? or have a "need" for sucking everything up. it wouldent do it for a random reason, there must be good reason for this right?.

and yes the white hole ting i was just theorising,

peace,

Hello Chi,

There aren't any serious theories about there being "another side" to a black hole. That's mostly science fiction and just the wishful thinking of a few people. What we do know is that they have no "need" in the sense you implied - no more so than the Earth has "need" of the space rocks that fall on us. It's just random happenings in both cases, nothing more.

We know how black holes grow and we know how they die. They eventually evaporate to nothing. They do that by means of Cherenkov radiation.

Hello Chi,

There aren't any serious theories about there being "another side" to a black hole. That's mostly science fiction and just the wishful thinking of a few people. What we do know is that they have no "need" in the sense you implied - no more so than the Earth has "need" of the space rocks that fall on us. It's just random happenings in both cases, nothing more.

We know how black holes grow and we know how they die. They eventually evaporate to nothing. They do that by means of Cherenkov radiation.


could you explain there meaning of existance to me please, and also what there overall part int he universe is, if there is a black hole sucking in matter basically, then my teachings would tell me there has to be an opposite to a black hole, something that compensates for it balencing it out in the universe, if things are unbalenced there is chaos,

thanks

peace,

could you explain there meaning of existance to me please, and also what there overall part int he universe is, if there is a black hole sucking in matter basically, then my teachings would tell me there has to be an opposite to a black hole, something that compensates for it balencing it out in the universe, if things are unbalenced there is chaos,

thanks

peace,

I don't quite understand your question, Chi. Exactly who says the universe has to be "balanced?" The universe simply "is" and it is slowly dying.

I don't quite understand your question, Chi. Exactly who says the universe has to be "balanced?" The universe simply "is" and it is slowly dying.

didnt say it has to be balenced from any angle of thinking per se, but as i look at things and wonder myself without interuptions from outside ways of thinking, i find everything to have an opposite,

what exactly is your overall viewpoint of existance itself, and purpose,


and my other questions were this,

what is the purpose of a black hole, why would a star do this and turn into a black hole, imploding on itself? transfering the matter why? and how?, just consuming it and gaining greater mass? or transfering the matter somewhere else? ifso where?,

if a black hole just simply consumes matter and gains mass, then that mass could be measured along with the overall size of it, if the hole consumed more matter than is accounted for, this means it must transfer it right, if the mass adds up to the amount consumed then it means it goes nowhere, and just accumilates right?,


the event horizon actually is so immense that light cannot escape from it true?, so that means something must be inside there? does it not? or it must lead to somewhere we cannot see,


again im not really fully educated in western space theories and philosophies/facts, so correct me if im wrong in western science terms please,

also what is your take on time, and its connection with black holes, distortion etc, i personally dont believe time exists fully, i doubt it,

one more question hwo does science know for a fact what it knows about black holes and the actual universe as a whole, apart from expansion,



peace,

what is the purpose of a black hole, why would a star do this and turn into a black hole, imploding on itself? transferring the matter why? and how?, just consuming it and gaining greater mass? or transferring the matter somewhere else? ifso where?,

-----short version----
a star has no choice in the matter (pun intended) when it becomes a black hole. onces its nuclear fuel is used up it will become a dwarf star (big hunk of glowing hot matter), a neutron star (made of neutron degenerate matter), or if it is massive enough, it will become a black hole.

-----less short version (still pretty short though)----
well, when huge gas clouds collapse into themselves, via gravity, they will become more and more dense until their light nuclei (hydrogen, helium, lithium, ect) will start to fuse together. the nuclear fusion releases energy, which prevents the huge ball of matter's further collapse, and that energy is what makes stars shine.

once the nuclear fuel is all fused (burned up), the star no longer has that force holding it up and will start to collapse again. after a turbulent phase of explosions (such as novae, ans super novae), the star will settle down and become dormant.

if the mass is small, they will become dwarf stars and slowly fade to black. intermediate stars will collapse into neutron stars, where the intense force of gravity (no longer being opposed by the energy of the fusion process) essentially combines the electrons and protons into neutron degenerate matter, which holds itself up because the matter is so dense that the particles would basically need to occupy the same space for it to get smaller. however, when the dead star weights more than about 3 times our sun, nothing will be able to hold it up against gravity and it will collapse into a point of infinite density, and zero size (singularity), and presto, we have a black hole.



to get at your other question: we know the mass is in there because we can still feel its gravity. however, black holes can lose mass via Hawking radiation (I will let you look into hawking radiation if you so choose). so a black hole can kinda spit out mass, but its not the same stuff that went in (that causes all kinds of problems for physicists).

if a black hole just simply consumes matter and gains mass, then that mass could be measured along with the overall size of it, if the hole consumed more matter than is accounted for, this means it must transfer it right, if the mass adds up to the amount consumed then it means it goes nowhere, and just accumulates right?,
yes, unfortunately, that is hard, if not impossible, to figure out for sure.

the event horizon actually is so immense that light cannot escape from it true? yes, but you have to remember, the event horizon is not a like a wall, it is simply a place where the velocity needed to escape from the black hole reaches the speed of light, and since nothing can go through space faster than light (according to currently accepted physics), nothing can escape.
so that means something must be inside there? does it not? or it must lead to somewhere we cannot see,
well, we know there is mass inside, but thats about all we can tell. I believe it is possible to see inside the event horizon, but you would have to fall into the black hole to do it.


one more question how does science know for a fact what it knows about black holes and the actual universe as a whole, apart from expansion,
well, black holes are hard to find. in fact, we are not even completely sure they exist, as they are so hard to see. its hard to explain thousands of years of astronomy/physics in one thread, but basically, scientists find ways of observing, theorizing, and testing aspects of the universe to figure out how it works. for example, we know what elements stars are made out of by observing the type of light they emit. that process is called spectroscopy. so we know what stars are made of on the edge of the observable universe.

sorry for being so long winded, its hard to explain.

why do you think a black hole has an 'other side'
it is a sphere, so there is no other side. once something goes in there, it is spagetified and then crushed, then i goes nowhere

That's what I was going to say.

didnt say it has to be balenced from any angle of thinking per se, but as i look at things and wonder myself without interuptions from outside ways of thinking, i find everything to have an opposite,

I believe if you'll just look around you a little bit you'll find that isn't true at all. For example, what is the opposite of a raven? What is the opposite of energy (there's no such thing as "no energy" it exists everywhere in differeng degrees). I believe you are allowing your "Eastern thinking" to cloud you good judgement. It's having far too much affect on your sense of reality.

what exactly is your overall viewpoint of existance itself, and purpose,

There is NO purpose that we can fathom. It's something that God did for his own reasons and he's not interested in telling us.


and my other questions were this,

what is the purpose of a black hole, why would a star do this and turn into a black hole, imploding on itself? transfering the matter why? and how?, just consuming it and gaining greater mass? or transfering the matter somewhere else? ifso where?,

Again, Chi, there IS no purpose. It simply is. What would you assume to be the "purpose" of a quasar at the fartherest reach of the galaxy?

if a black hole just simply consumes matter and gains mass, then that mass could be measured along with the overall size of it, if the hole consumed more matter than is accounted for, this means it must transfer it right, if the mass adds up to the amount consumed then it means it goes nowhere, and just accumilates right?,

I's pretty much impossible for us to measure the mass of a black hole. We've done so indirectly by observing it's effects on nearby stars. We've also no way of telling how much mass it has consumed and how much has already evaporated (as I explained earlier). Except for what evaporates, yes, the rest is still there. In what state or condition? We've absolutely no way of knowing - yet.


the event horizon actually is so immense that light cannot escape from it true?, so that means something must be inside there? does it not? or it must lead to somewhere we cannot see,

Why would you suppose that? It's simply a dead-end for matter. And consider this: what's on the "other side" of an ordinary well? Does it lead to some form of alternate existance?


again im not really fully educated in western space theories and philosophies/facts, so correct me if im wrong in western science terms please,

also what is your take on time, and its connection with black holes, distortion etc, i personally dont believe time exists fully, i doubt it,

I don't hold your lack of knowledge or experience against you. Each of us is at some level and hopefully building on that.

Yes, time exists. The existans of time, it's interrelationship with space and matter (and black holes, too) is covered in General ans Special Relativity. Far too much information to present here.
one more question hwo does science know for a fact what it knows about black holes and the actual universe as a whole, apart from expansion,


From observation as well as direct and indirect measurments.

No white holes have ever been observed in our universe.

Black holes haven't been discovered either, have they? They're just predictions of Einsteins theories. If there's a picture where you can see the effects of a black hole, I'd like to see one. I doubt the existence of "black holes"... matter falling into a complete singularity? If black holes have been discovered, they might just be small neutron stars...

-----short version----
a star has no choice in the matter (pun intended) when it becomes a black hole. onces its nuclear fuel is used up it will become a dwarf star (big hunk of glowing hot matter), a neutron star (made of neutron degenerate matter), or if it is massive enough, it will become a black hole.

-----less short version (still pretty short though)----
well, when huge gas clouds collapse into themselves, via gravity, they will become more and more dense until their light nuclei (hydrogen, helium, lithium, ect) will start to fuse together. the nuclear fusion releases energy, which prevents the huge ball of matter's further collapse, and that energy is what makes stars shine.

once the nuclear fuel is all fused (burned up), the star no longer has that force holding it up and will start to collapse again. after a turbulent phase of explosions (such as novae, ans super novae), the star will settle down and become dormant.

if the mass is small, they will become dwarf stars and slowly fade to black. intermediate stars will collapse into neutron stars, where the intense force of gravity (no longer being opposed by the energy of the fusion process) essentially combines the electrons and protons into neutron degenerate matter, which holds itself up because the matter is so dense that the particles would basically need to occupy the same space for it to get smaller. however, when the dead star weights more than about 3 times our sun, nothing will be able to hold it up against gravity and it will collapse into a point of infinite density, and zero size (singularity), and presto, we have a black hole.



to get at your other question: we know the mass is in there because we can still feel its gravity. however, black holes can lose mass via Hawking radiation (I will let you look into hawking radiation if you so choose). so a black hole can kinda spit out mass, but its not the same stuff that went in (that causes all kinds of problems for physicists).


yes, unfortunately, that is hard, if not impossible, to figure out for sure.

yes, but you have to remember, the event horizon is not a like a wall, it is simply a place where the velocity needed to escape from the black hole reaches the speed of light, and since nothing can go through space faster than light (according to currently accepted physics), nothing can escape.

well, we know there is mass inside, but thats about all we can tell. I believe it is possible to see inside the event horizon, but you would have to fall into the black hole to do it.



well, black holes are hard to find. in fact, we are not even completely sure they exist, as they are so hard to see. its hard to explain thousands of years of astronomy/physics in one thread, but basically, scientists find ways of observing, theorizing, and testing aspects of the universe to figure out how it works. for example, we know what elements stars are made out of by observing the type of light they emit. that process is called spectroscopy. so we know what stars are made of on the edge of the observable universe.

sorry for being so long winded, its hard to explain.



no it wasnt long winded or boring to read atall, i learned a few things thankyou,


peace,

I believe if you'll just look around you a little bit you'll find that isn't true at all. For example, what is the opposite of a raven? What is the opposite of energy (there's no such thing as "no energy" it exists everywhere in differeng degrees). I believe you are allowing your "Eastern thinking" to cloud you good judgement. It's having far too much affect on your sense of reality.



There is NO purpose that we can fathom. It's something that God did for his own reasons and he's not interested in telling us.


and my other questions were this,



Again, Chi, there IS no purpose. It simply is. What would you assume to be the "purpose" of a quasar at the fartherest reach of the galaxy?



I's pretty much impossible for us to measure the mass of a black hole. We've done so indirectly by observing it's effects on nearby stars. We've also no way of telling how much mass it has consumed and how much has already evaporated (as I explained earlier). Except for what evaporates, yes, the rest is still there. In what state or condition? We've absolutely no way of knowing - yet.




Why would you suppose that? It's simply a dead-end for matter. And consider this: what's on the "other side" of an ordinary well? Does it lead to some form of alternate existance?




I don't hold your lack of knowledge or experience against you. Each of us is at some level and hopefully building on that.

Yes, time exists. The existans of time, it's interrelationship with space and matter (and black holes, too) is covered in General ans Special Relativity. Far too much information to present here.


From observation as well as direct and indirect measurments.





hey light,

i do have one problem with you way of thinking, i am open to possibilities that other dimentions exist, and black holes may lead there, and i believe in Qi energ, and other senses and abilities of the body, i have no real scientific evidence to support my philosophies, but i accept your god theory to be a possibility, but you dont seem to think my philosophies and theories could be true atall, and you dismiss them also, but you believe in god wich is just theory and philosophy, you have no scientific evidence to suggest god exists, so how can you believe in something such as god, but not simple things like Qi and alternate thinking to science?


im just really curious, because you say cloud your judgement through hope, couldent believing in an afterlife and god be seen as letting hope cloud your true scientific judgement,


ive learned to not dismiss extream things so fast, because i myself hold some beliefs in strange doings, you believe in god and believe in creation from a devine bieng, but wont even consider Qi or Quantum theories?,


it puzzles me,


peace,

Black holes haven't been discovered either, have they? They're just predictions of Einsteins theories.
Actually black holes are predicted by classical Newtonian physics as well - their existance was first proposed in 1783. If you put enough mass in one place, eventually the gravitational pull will be so strong that light can't escape.

didnt say it has to be balenced from any angle of thinking per se, but as i look at things and wonder myself without interuptions from outside ways of thinking, i find everything to have an opposite,
I'm afraid I have to agree with Light here. Not everything has an opposite. What is the opposite of a tree?

I'm afraid I have to agree with Light here. Not everything has an opposite. What is the opposite of a tree?



i forgot to answer light about this, it slipped my mind after i rambled about other points,

sorry


opposites exist everywhere, and it isnt always as simple as opposite looks, thats simply thinking things look opposite,


you said a tree, now to my daoist teachings, a tree breaths life to humans, the opposite to a plant, is an animal, not in appearance, but in harmonising and its place in nature and existance,

we breath life to the tree, the tree breaths life into us,

that is an opposite,



light

how do you know energy has no opposite, isnt there other forms of energy? and forces that are opposite?. action causes reaction, reaction cant become without action,

action could be seen as opposite to reaction,

opposites ist as simple as function look and other things of this kind, its complex, if you would study the Dao, it actually tackles most deep questions like this, in alot better ways that i can explain, to explain the dao is hard, it has to be lived rather than taught,


peace,

What is the opposite of a tree?

A boulder?

When one seeks to regulate something,
he is in fact going contrary to it.

Where he seeks to embellish something,
he is in fact harming it..

Nonaction does not mean being completely inert,
but rather that nothing is initiated from the ego-self.
-- Huai Nan Tzu,


The creative process of the universe is also the creative process of the poet, who has transformed his ego into self, and thus has become part of the universe.

The great self reflects things, but does not change them.
-- Chang Chung-yuan,

As people grow up and engage in active life, oneness is lost. The dualism of yin and yang then dominates human consciousness and the world. As a result, everything people see happening around them is perceived as depending on the interaction of opposites... As yin and yang change into each other at their peak, so all opposites in the world alternate. Whatever is yin can only maintain its yin-nature until it reaches its pinnacle. Then it reverts back to yang, and vice versa. For people's activities, this means that the straight forward pursuit of a goal does not always lead there.

...True people for [Zhuangzi] are those who have merged their thoughts and actions with the ever-changing transformations of the universe. Once at one with the Tao, such people act from their innermost being; they no longer deliberate or think about their actions. Free from all choice, they reflect the situation with perfect clarity and duly respond in the only possible and perfectly appropriate way.
-- Livia Kohn, Early Chinese

Actually black holes are predicted by classical Newtonian physics as well - their existance was first proposed in 1783. If you put enough mass in one place, eventually the gravitational pull will be so strong that light can't escape.

But if you put more and more mass to a place, the gravity would become stronger than the resistance of matter and it would collapse into a "neutron star" (or neutron "object") and the gravity would eventually weaken, but it could not become a black hole, a singularity.

But if you put more and more mass to a place, the gravity would become stronger than the resistance of matter and it would collapse into a "neutron star" (or neutron "object") and the gravity would eventually weaken, but it could not become a black hole, a singularity.
Why would the gravity weaken? Remember, gravity increases as an object gets smaller. The only way to weaken the gravity would be to decrease the mass. When a star collapses to a neutron star the surface gravity is far stronger than it was before the collapse.

Also, keep in mind that the existance of a singularity isn't necessary for the existance of a black hole. A body about 500 times the diameter of our sun with the same density would have an escape velocity higher than the speed of light.

Remember, gravity increases as an object gets smaller. The only way to weaken the gravity would be to decrease the mass. When a star collapses to a neutron star the surface gravity is far stronger than it was before the collapse.

Why... why does it have stronger gravity when it is smaller when it still has the same mass?

Also, keep in mind that the existance of a singularity isn't necessary for the existance of a black hole. A body about 500 times the diameter of our sun with the same density would have an escape velocity higher than the speed of light.

I want to call them small neutron stars instead.

Why... why does it have stronger gravity when it is smaller when it still has the same mass?The force of gravity depends on both the amount of mass and the distance from the center of mass. As the star gets smaller the surface gets closer to the center of mass, which would cause an increase in surface gravity. The smaller the star gets, the stronger gravity's pull on its surface gets. This is true under both modern physics and classical Newtonian physics.

Our best calculations indicate that the force of gravity would increase faster than the repulsive forces between the neutons would increase, so the star would just keep shrinking.

The force of gravity depends on both the amount of mass and the distance from the center of mass.

Why do stars rotate so fast when they become neutron stars? Is it because they try to defend themselves from shrinking?

Our best calculations indicate that the force of gravity would increase faster than the repulsive forces between the neutons would increase, so the star would just keep shrinking.

But it could never become a singularity, right?

Why do stars rotate so fast when they become neutron stars? Is it because they try to defend themselves from shrinking?I don't really know, but I suspect it's just conservation of angular momentum as the star shrinks.But it could never become a singularity, right?Well, I think an ever-shrinking, tiny mass that asymptotically approaches the volume of a dimensionless point would probably qualify as a singularity. The gravitational pull of such an object could effectively be infinite, since its volume would be approaching zero.

Well, I think an ever-shrinking, tiny mass that asymptotically approaches the volume of a dimensionless point would probably qualify as a singularity.

Is there really so much space between electrons and the atomic nucleus that they can shrink so much?

There's a very interesting article on quantum gravity in the latest (November 2005) issue of Scientific American--read it if you can get hold of it. It looks at Black Holes in a new way.

c7ityi_:

Black holes haven't been discovered either, have they? They're just predictions of Einsteins theories.

Thousands of objects have been observed by astronomers which can't be anything other than black holes. Black holes are not just theoretical.

If there's a picture where you can see the effects of a black hole, I'd like to see one.

Sure. Just google "quasar" on the internet and you'll find plenty.

I doubt the existence of "black holes"... matter falling into a complete singularity? If black holes have been discovered, they might just be small neutron stars...

Impossible. The energy outputs possible from neutron stars are no where near large enough compared to what we see from black holes. Your idea just doesn't work on theoretical grounds.

isnt this hole discussion theory?


peace,

isnt this hole discussion theory?


peace,

No, not completely, Chi. As I said before - it's also based on observations and measurements.

yes it is a theory based upon observation,

speculation to be honest,


just because you can observe something and measure it in some ways, dosent mean its out of the field of theory does it, isnt hard evidence required for it to be concluded as non theoretical,


peace,

yes it is a theory based upon observation,

speculation to be honest,


just because you can observe something and measure it in some ways, dosent mean its out of the field of theory does it, isnt hard evidence required for it to be concluded as non theoretical,


peace,

That's correct. However, the results so far seem to confirm the theory and nothing yet has contradicted it. That's the way all good science progresses. If everything you can find matches and nothing goes against it (except the kooks in the world) :D then the theory moves up another level in acceptance. If it ever fails once, it's time to start over.

logical,

I was wondering a bid on how small a singularity percisly is.
The planet jupiter bulges slitly because of it's fast rotation. This somehow proves that rotational speed can counteract gravity (at least in my opinion).

When a star would halve it's size, then it's rotation would be 2 times as fast, and so on, and so on.

This acceleration is a infinite energy source(i gues), shouldn't the rotational speed at some point prevent the black hole from further collapsing?

yes it is a theory based upon observation,

speculation to be honest,


just because you can observe something and measure it in some ways, dosent mean its out of the field of theory does it, isnt hard evidence required for it to be concluded as non theoretical,


peace,

I guess by your meaning the object that is orbiting around the 30 solar mass Blue giant star HDE226868 every 5.6 days is 'Not' a 7 solar mass Black Hole called Cygnus X-1, but instead it's probably just a super-sized cosmic solar powered vacuum cleaner of suspicious origin.......Right? :D

There are different possible types of black holes in General relativity. The first to be theorized was the Schwarzschild BH, the metric of this BH was discovered pretty soon after Einstein came up with his equations. But actually, is not a very realistic kind of BH, because it doesn't rotate. So, another solution of the Einstein equations, the Kerr Black Hole, is regarded actually as the most likely BH to exist in the real Universe (the Kerr BH does rotate, and astrophysicists believe that BHs must rotate)

The Kerr metric, in CGS units and Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, can be found in this page

http://www.astro.su.se/groups/head/sara/node11.html

Important: the singularity of a Kerr hole is ring-shaped, so it's not the boring point that you would expect in a Schwarzschild BH

Also, with respect to the question: what happens to the matter falling into a BH?. Well, in a Kerr BH some go to the singularity, but it would be possible for an intelligent being that has crossed the inner event horizon to escape falling into the singularity. In that case is theorized that that being would emerge into another Universe through a white hole, or perhaps would emerge in another part of this Universe

In the beginning, there is energy. Or is it the end?

Energy evolves into stars, then there is the end of the star - the black hole.

In the end, there is energy. Or is it the beginning?

Conservation principle might need revision...

I guess by your meaning the object that is orbiting around the 30 solar mass Blue giant star HDE226868 every 5.6 days is 'Not' a 7 solar mass Black Hole called Cygnus X-1, but instead it's probably just a super-sized cosmic solar powered vacuum cleaner of suspicious origin.......Right? :D


spot on!,

peace

There are different possible types of black holes in General relativity. The first to be theorized was the Schwarzschild BH, the metric of this BH was discovered pretty soon after Einstein came up with his equations. But actually, is not a very realistic kind of BH, because it doesn't rotate. So, another solution of the Einstein equations, the Kerr Black Hole, is regarded actually as the most likely BH to exist in the real Universe (the Kerr BH does rotate, and astrophysicists believe that BHs must rotate)

The Kerr metric, in CGS units and Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, can be found in this page

http://www.astro.su.se/groups/head/sara/node11.html

Important: the singularity of a Kerr hole is ring-shaped, so it's not the boring point that you would expect in a Schwarzschild BH

Also, with respect to the question: what happens to the matter falling into a BH?. Well, in a Kerr BH some go to the singularity, but it would be possible for an intelligent being that has crossed the inner event horizon to escape falling into the singularity. In that case is theorized that that being would emerge into another Universe through a white hole, or perhaps would emerge in another part of this Universe

isnt that an episode of red dwarf?


peace,

There's a very interesting article on quantum gravity in the latest (November 2005) issue of Scientific American--read it if you can get hold of it. It looks at Black Holes in a new way.



I searched sciam site. Couldn't locate the article. I guess they have it online. Could you please tell me the title of the article. Thanks.

Well if you ask the question "what is the other side of a black hole?" What if the other side of the black hole did the same as the side that pulls in matter? pull everything into the middle and consuming it. By consuming it gaining more energy for the black hole making it continue

Not "Cerenkov radiation".

"Hawking radiation".

Though, Stephen has gained a reputation for reversing his previously expressed opinions, and so by the time this becomes posted, who knows what the current Hawking opinion will be.

Not "Cerenkov radiation".

"Hawking radiation".

Though, Stephen has gained a reputation for reversing his previously expressed opinions, and so by the time this becomes posted, who knows what the current Hawking opinion will be.

Correct as usual, CANGAS. ;)

That's another pair that I frequently catch myself reversing. (And I wish it were only one or two - physics was not one of my chosen fields and I don't use or think of it often enough to keep everything straight.)

spot on!,

peace

Well if that's the case, I guess you'd agree that the super cosmic vacuum cleaner at the core of M-87 must be a little bigger than the one orbiting HDE226868.........Right? You don't mind if I write to Hawking and tell him about your 'Spot On' theory do ya? He might enjoy hearing about it:D

I believe if you'll just look around you a little bit you'll find that isn't true at all. For example, what is the opposite of a raven? What is the opposite of energy (there's no such thing as "no energy" it exists everywhere in differeng degrees). I believe you are allowing your "Eastern thinking" to cloud you good judgement. It's having far too much affect on your sense of reality.



There is NO purpose that we can fathom. It's something that God did for his own reasons and he's not interested in telling us.


and my other questions were this,



Again, Chi, there IS no purpose. It simply is. What would you assume to be the "purpose" of a quasar at the fartherest reach of the galaxy?



I's pretty much impossible for us to measure the mass of a black hole. We've done so indirectly by observing it's effects on nearby stars. We've also no way of telling how much mass it has consumed and how much has already evaporated (as I explained earlier). Except for what evaporates, yes, the rest is still there. In what state or condition? We've absolutely no way of knowing - yet.


That's where I disagree,you know astronomers got closest look to the Milky Way's central black hole,and yet the the strongest proof,as well.Right now estimated mass of the Milky Way's central black hole is 4 million times of our sun's mass,and the closer they get,the bigger mass is.What now astronomers are trying is to get black hole's shadow,that would be the first concrete,direct proof of the supermassive black hole in the center of our own galaxy:By observing the object at higher radio frequencies, scientists have detected parts of the jets ever closer to the black hole.
The results announced last year were based on observations at 43 Ghz, and the latest observations were made at 86 Ghz.

Astronomers believe that if they can double the frequency again, they will see the black hole's shadow produced by effects of Einstein's General Relativity theory!
In a few years, when the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) comes on line, it may be used in conjunction with other millimeter-wave telescopes to make the higher-frequency/shortwave and infrared observations that will reveal the telltale black hole's shadow!
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milkyway-05h.html

Here is a speculation...black holes eat mass until they are full that is when they consume the entire mass of the universe...then they blow up to create the universe back again...just a thought.

Somewhere I read that our galaxy has a black hole in the center. Any one can corroborate?

Hum,
just now it may be as fruitful to speculate what's on the other side of blue (or red)...

But if i were to make a stab at how it ends, my speculation is that after the last blackhole evaporates the universe would be for all intents and purposes `empty` (though still containing space-time).

My two main choices are that that is The End`; or that somehow the universe gets `reset` (no space-time) to just the two original 5d membranes, (or restarts to form another BB (and separate space-time) with properties inherited from this universe...

Here is a speculation...black holes eat mass until they are full that is when they consume the entire mass of the universe...then they blow up to create the universe back again...just a thought.

Somewhere I read that our galaxy has a black hole in the center. Any one can corroborate?

You must mean the 'Mother Of All Black Holes'........Right? I don't think we've found that one yet. At least not yet. I believe astronomers have found a 10 billion solar mass Black Hole > 'Q0906+6930'. That's a pretty big one I would think. Anybody found a bigger one yet? I don't think so.:D

I meant:

The evolution of the collision of two equal mass black holes was computed using a Cray C-90 supercomputer at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and Cray Y-MP at NCSA. The black holes start initially at rest, and accelerate towards each other as a result of their mutual attraction due to gravity. As the holes collide, a large, distorted black hole is formed, which vibrates at its characteristic frequency. The final oscillating hole emits gravitational waves at this frequency as it settles down to its quiet, spherical state.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SCMS/DigLib/text/astro/Colliding-Black-Holes-Seidel.html

You must mean the 'Mother Of All Black Holes'........Right? I don't think we've found that one yet. At least not yet. I believe astronomers have found a 10 billion solar mass Black Hole > 'Q0906+6930'. That's a pretty big one I would think. Anybody found a bigger one yet? I don't think so.:D

i didn't know about this black hole, but i say that is really impressive. It certainly is more than three time more massive than the BH that I believed to be the more massive found (the BH at the center of M87, with a estimated mass of 3 billion solar masses)

It's also very distant, with a redshift z= 5.4

i didn't know about this black hole, but i say that is really impressive. It certainly is more than three time more massive than the BH that I believed to be the more massive found (the BH at the center of M87, with a estimated mass of 3 billion solar masses)

I found this particular reference to 'Q0906+6930 at Yahoo Search. Just type in 'Q0906+6930' in Yahoo Search and find out why this particular 'super huge' 10 billion solar mass Black Hole is so puzzling to astronomers. :D

I'm afraid I have to agree with Light here. Not everything has an opposite. What is the opposite of a tree?

Desert ;)

I would be willing to guess that if astronomers have already found a 10 billion solar mass Black Hole, such as Q0906+6930, then it is also a pretty good bet that there is probably an even 'bigger' Supermassive Black Hole out there waiting to be found. Question? What is the theoretical size limit in billions solar masses that a Supermassive Black Hole can obtain based on the current age of the known universe? Any guesses?

Here is a speculation...black holes eat mass until they are full that is when they consume the entire mass of the universe...then they blow up to create the universe back again...just a thought.

Somewhere I read that our galaxy has a black hole in the center. Any one can corroborate?

Read,above,I wrote the link and the sentence about Milky Way's central black hole.

I was looking through forums when i saw this post and felt a desire to register and respond. About the tree, and time.

First off a tree is not a single thing, its many things that make up one thing we use the word "tree" to describe. So your right, and wrong (in my openion). A tree does not have an opposite, atleast in the sense of the word tree. Because when you say tree your reffering to something in a very vague term. This is more of a phylisophical point of view obviously but a valid one (i think so atleast). There are different types of "trees" and different types of shrubs and other assorted plants. But this is also a very limited point of view we have. A tree is made of matter, and it would be the smallest parts you would compare to find an opposite, not the system it makes up. Its like asking, "is there an opposite of the United states of america?". NO! there isnt, because there is not one single point in which you can say THIS alone is america. America is made up of many different things, government branches and legal systems. A tree is made up of many different parts and is not a single point of existance in which you can judge. Also, we dont know everything there is to know. Once we know the answer to every question we will know but as long as there are still questions everything is uncertain. We dont know what makes life exist in the forms it does, we can see it, weigh it with our weighing methods but we cant prove or disprove how things exist.

Then theres time.... I beleive it was in another post above this one but i felt compelled to reply to it as well. Im not sure if this is a beleif many other hold but here i go. We dont really know if time exists. And even if it does exist at this point in time (HAHA) we cant talk much about it factualy. Theres carbon dating but that is only useful to a very limited scale. To say there is time then there is a point in which we can say time began here, and continues to run. But... time could be more like a circle, sphere i suppose would be a better word. No ending no beggening. I really dont know anything, even the things im told that we do know very well could be wrong. Look back 1,000 years ago, scientists then were saying "this is how it is!" and now we say WOW look how wrong they were. So... its possible 1,000 years from now scientists (if humans are still around) will be saying the same thing. A very important aproach to science is an open mind otherwise its a waste of time.

I appoligize for going on and on and not being very discriptive in my response and descriptions. Im tired and its been a strange week.


i forgot to answer light about this, it slipped my mind after i rambled about other points,

sorry


opposites exist everywhere, and it isnt always as simple as opposite looks, thats simply thinking things look opposite,


you said a tree, now to my daoist teachings, a tree breaths life to humans, the opposite to a plant, is an animal, not in appearance, but in harmonising and its place in nature and existance,

we breath life to the tree, the tree breaths life into us,

that is an opposite,



light

how do you know energy has no opposite, isnt there other forms of energy? and forces that are opposite?. action causes reaction, reaction cant become without action,

action could be seen as opposite to reaction,

opposites ist as simple as function look and other things of this kind, its complex, if you would study the Dao, it actually tackles most deep questions like this, in alot better ways that i can explain, to explain the dao is hard, it has to be lived rather than taught,


peace,