Blackhole at the center of each galaxy, think again

I meant to say how can anything get out from the black hole,if there's absolutely NOTHING faster than light speed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what is your basis for the statement "Hawking radiation sucks" ?
and also, particles are able to escape a black hole by quantum tunnelling, but i doubt that is where most of the radiation comes from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because it's dumb to make a theory,first because there is nothing faster than light in space,and second,we will never be able to approach black hole-so what's the point of making up theories what's inside the black hole or any other theory connected to the black hole,if we will never find out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so far, the mathematical equations associated with quantum physics and the standard model have been able to accurately predict what is really out there. also, this is a new theory, so it is almost guarenteed that it will undergo changes and modifications. and we don't have to be right next to a black hole to get data from it, we extract data relating to a black hole just from the radiation it emits, or how light is bent around it. and what does the theory that there is nothing faster than the speed of light have anything to do with it? do you know anything about hawking radiation? stephen hawking developed the equations for it which then disproved his original theories about black holes. so he actually proved himself wrong by coming up with this theory. the reason this theory was developed is because it solves other problems in the math concerning black holes, though not nearly all of them. there are problems with the theory in that it happens under circumstances that are not governed by ordinary physics. at the center of a black hole, the standard model becomes unusable and we have to find out, usually by trial and error, what causes this.

you might think it dumb to make a theory which we cannot experiment on, but it is outright asinine to do nothing at all and instead sit back and think we have it all figured out.

 

The answer is: See the movie 'Event Horizon'. They found a way to get out of a Black Hole. A small one at that.

May_wentee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which does happen.

We can barely "see" the black hole because of all the stars right in front of it. So what are you talking about?

 

what was that? i was always told that movie was crappy, so i never bothered with it.

 

Mass doesn't have to convert to energy to produce energy when falling into a black hole. The energy of collision is extremely high, higher than fusion. Close enough to the singularity, if the BH has one, it is higher than total mass conversion. The gravitational potential energy from clear space to near a singularity is very nearly infinite. We might never see it, but the mass equivalent of the increased kinetic energy would add more mass to the black hole area than the mass that carries the kinetic energy. This is a phenomenon that has already been observed. Particles accelerated at near-light speeds become more like stored energy at a nearly constant speed. Those extreme high energies come from actual storage of energy within the particle's wave functions.

 

Watch it anyway. It's scientifically enlightning.....especially about where the ship went (Maybe another dimension or even Hell?) when it went into the small Black Hole it created and what it brought back with it (Big time evil stuff) after it came back (+7 years later) and went into a decaying orbit around Neptune. Definetly a 'thought provoking' Sci-Fi movie about using a small Black Hole for traveling at warp speed. One of the better 'Horror' Sci-fi movies.

May_wentee :bugeye:

 

Oh,I know exactly how Hawking radiation works-everything would be ok with this theory,if there no one particular term in it:virtual particles!
Virtualo particles don't exist,and that's why Hawking radion sucks.However,Einstein and Tesla were the MEN!

 

I watched that movie a couple of time,at least there is a good music theme.I don't have any regrets on the movie,but at the end they all screwed up everybody should have been dead and destroyed,since they all went through the black hole.

 

light travels in a straight line so

first drop a rotating mirror in a blackhole and fire a mild laser to it

speed of light remains constant hence it should be reflected back from inside the BH from the mirror form the same path it travels in the BH

 

as they pass by

 

those virtual particles had to be included to make the equations work. the fact is, hawking radiation explains a very real aspect of black holes. whether or not the theory is entirely correct has no impact on whether or not black holes emit radiation.

 

We know there is a black hole in the middle of the galaxy because we obseve that stars around it have extremely fast orbits, which would be completely impossible without a black hole.

 

Stephen Hawking recanted the theory of "Hawking radiation" recently. It's been in the news. The theory that small singularities might evaporate quickly now has no support.

For anyone who wondered, there is a very simple formula for determining the radius of an event horizon according to how many solar masses are inside. It is 2.95 kilometers for every M, every Sol mass. One million times Sol mass, the radius is 2.95 million kilometers, and one billion times Sol mass, the radius is 2.95 billion kilometers.

 

what about the particle accellerators that recently postulated that tiny black holes were created and then evaporated after colliding gold particles with each other. the miniscule black holes evaporated after a tiny fraction of a second. though they have not been proven to be black holes, the evidence supports the idea. i'm just saying that even though hawkings equations have been refuted, the aspect of black holes they explained is still real and needs to be explained.

 

Really ?

That black hole of yours can be a lump of dead stars clubed together.

Try ANSRIN THIS

Now we know that most of the stars are binary systems, so how come we havnt yet found a smaller star revolving around a BH made out of huge star due to its shorter life span ?

 

Well we have; there are many candidates, the best known of which is Cygnus X-1
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/854.htm


A graphic image of this binary pair
http://www.starosta.com/technical/art/cygnus_X-1.jpg

 

I am not sure that is true, Metachron; but if you have a link about it I would be grateful.
To be honest, a lot of people were initially puzzled by Hawking's recent announcement, including the physicist William Unruh;
if you can point me towards a good description of the impact of his new ideas please do.