Black holes.

As in crappy GCSE lower ed stuff, thats why i never had the answer, becoz the secondary school teach prob didnt know.They have to stick to this god damn syllabus which really means we get some fukin handouts which are utter dog shit to any of us who want to know a tad more...hence the thread question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What?? Dont post in threads you cant contribute too, troll.

If we all used your logic, none of us would be here anyway, were supposed to be part of a 'community', hence the question.

Sarcastic prick

Well, John smith II in disguise, yes we know its you..dont needlessly aggrivate or abuse other members of the forum, if you dont like it you know what you can do.

No, as you know GCSE's are there to teach you a little of everything, i personnally hate the way they have to ctick to the syllabus, as you come out unsure about a little bit of everything!!

Yes, funny bastard arent you??

I really really dont think you, 'chav', have a place to talk to me about degrees, do you?...Get my drift fuker???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see you've picked up internet slang now too! With words like "sarcastic prick" and "fuker", lets see who's resorting to a troll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thats odd. I always assumed that blackholes were in the GCSE syllabus, as I recall anways. And I dunno about being "unsure of everything" - I think that just sums up your level of intelligence. (Though you do have a point - GCSE teaching is both simplistic and vague, never taught in enough detail.)

Lets face it this hardly the topic of thaught provoking debate is it - "What is a blackhole?"
Sounds like the prattle of a 12 year old.
(*I'm trying to sound intelligent, but I really can't think of a good subject to start a thread on. I know! I'll start one on "Blackholes" - that will get me everyone's attention!*)

On an unrelated note - I think if you had a degree then you'd make less spelling mistakes!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course we know why youv practiced spelling, were on the internet, you dont need to spell correct. Oh yes, and by the way, you spelt 'thought' wrong, unlucky prof. i am not the one seeking attention. :m:
Lets stop this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

are you trying to boost your ego or something? is there a point to this caustic rambling? i don't see any kind of point you are trying to prove, so the only reason you're here obviously, is to try to make other people look like asses. let me give you a hint, the only ass you are making is yourself. you think he acts like a 12 year old? well obviously you never passed kindergarten where we all learned how to be respectful, no matter how much or little someone knew about something. looks like someone is a little insecure about his own intelligence...

 

Back on topic guys, or the thread gets it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok.

I`ll start the ball rolling..

Do rotating black holes have a `standing gravity wave` around them....?

 

i dont really know enough about this topic to answer that, but i'll try. from what i've read i think the answer would be yes and no. i would think that, in a rotating black hole, within the event horizon there would be a standing gravitational wave, but in the ergosphere surrounding the event horizon, the gravitational wave would still be moving outward, or maybe it would just have angular momentum around the center of the black hole. in the ergosphere, the gravity is fluctuating and objects are either flung towards the event horizon, or out into space at high velocity. i think it would be rather chaotic.

 

I'll cool it now guys. Sorry Mr Egotistical Einstein! (Ahem. I mean "RoyLennigan") Quite the hypocrite are'nt you? You destroy your argument by further adding pointless prattle to the thread, lets admitt it - you're equally as guilty as me. For your understanding Roy, we're talking about "Black Holes."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On a lighter note - what is a 'standing gravity wave'?? Seriously, I am intrigued. But I don't trust Roy's prattle, he's spoken out of his ass enough. ("The answer would be yes and no." - You sound like George Bush!) All I gathered from the above is that "yadda-yadda-yadda", black holes are chaotic. Well duh!!

Can some kind, benevolent and compassionate individual, complimented by a tender human understanding please explain?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

a standing wave is a wave that is not moving in any direction through space. this is either because the medium it is in is moving in an opposite direction to how the wave should be moving, or because of interference with another wave moving in the opposite direction. i dont know enough about physics to answer how this would affect gravity.

the reason i said yes and no to the answer before, was because in a rotating black hole, there are two event horizons, with different gravitational characteristics.

 

I see. Thanks Roy, I guess.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But if the "black hole" has such mass and gravitational pull so as to prohibit light from escaping it, how does the standing wave exist within its influence? What prevents the gravitational forces from continuing to build in strength so that the first neutron star that collapsed in on itself did not start a universe wide collapse? Surely such a collapse happened much earlier in the life of the universe when the closer proximity of all matter and the strength of the gravitational pull would have caused such a collapse. We are intelligent beings but are missing fundamental facts about the phenomena we call black holes. We will discover that they are not the things we are all betting on, based on current understanding. I suggest again that they are the aspirational trails or wakes of matter long since blown past the areas we observe as black holes and that the speed of the original matter continues to accelerate out from the center (wherever that was) because there was nothing to inhibit that acceleration at the big bang or whatever the defining event really was. With enough (any) initial velocity, what would slow it down in a vacuum such as would have existed before the event? Why wouldn't the slightest velocity continue to increase where no resistance exists? If that is what happened, why wouldn't that velocity bypass that of light? If that happened, why wouldn't the vacuum created by such increasingly accelerating mass act just like the "black holes" we observe? One difference I can imagine is that the gravitational effects (supposedly inherent in black holes) wouldn't collapse the universe around such a trail, whose outer effects are weakened over time instead of strengthened over time. The trails vacuous influence would weaken in strength but broaden in space and eventually act on more and more bodies. As those bodies get pulled closer to the center of the trail, they accelerate more quickly away from the origin of the event and appear to be sucked in. Neither would they ever be seen again since they and their light would at last near the center of the trail and their speed would exceed that of light, just as that of the original matter did. It's just a thought.

 

is there someone who can help me find a black hole? I think there's one in my closet, I keep loosing things...