SCIENCE!!!

[watsonj11]

What really confuses me about black holes is the way many scientists support their existence but also support Einstein's theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, I was sure black holes have sufficient energy to suck in light which surely must prove Einstein wrong.

[lukeb28]

Ah very good question! Black holes don't use energy in the common sense to capture light, they use their massiveness to pull it in with near immeasurable gravity. The acceleration of the black hole at the event horizon (The actual blackness) bends the light so much that it actually orbits the black hole like the moon around earth. Since we see with light, and it is not actually leaving the area of the black hole, we see nothing. The light is not being sucked in and destroyed, it is simply not getting to us due to being in orbit.

[watsonj11]

But still surely something with similar properties to light must be pulled in at a similar speed to light

[lukeb28]

I am not sure what your asking with that. Could you elaborate please?

[watsonj11]

I think maybe I have not fully understood what the theory actually says but what my reasoning was is that since a black hole can alter the course of light even if it is going directly away from it surely that force must be capable of accelerating something to the speed of light.

[watsonj11]

I have got it wrong haven't I

sorry I get things mixed up/ wrong / totally made up sometimes

[lukeb28]

I have never thought of that and it seems wholly possible. Getting a gravity assist from a black hole would have great potential. I think that if you were to fall into the black hole near the core you would be accelerated to near the speed of light. The problem with that though is you would decelerate on the way out negating this boost. Add to that the fact that there is a solid mass in the center of the black hole that you would crash into and I would say it just cant happen. IF there wasn't a mass and IF there was no gravity on the other side to slow you down it is perceivable you could get to near the speed of light. Aiming to the side of the mass would just put you into an orbit the same as light.

In short: An object could be accelerated to near the speed of light near the center of the black hole but would not be able to escape with that velocity due to impact with the center and the reverse acceleration on the way out.

[watsonj11]

It would be awesome if they could really synthesise a black hole (very difficult since no one has ever actually studied on close enough to do that) but what I really wondered was how that point does not prove Einstein wrong, scientists seem to want to keep his theory but really the essence of scientific development is that nothing can be proved-only disproved

[lukeb28]

What is the point of disproof?

[watsonj11]

What is the point of disproof?

If you think about it it's basically the only way you can look at things, I mean can you prove that you are sitting at your pc right now? You think you can but you can't because this world could all be some massively elaborate hoax that is not real, all your scenes could be lying to you, can you prove they are not? we cannot prove anything utterly

The way I look at it is just enjoy life while you can, find something to take up your time but if you find you think things are to real to be fake then join a religion! They don't try to explain everything but have valid answers and can help you feel relaxed in this strange world that no one can fully explain.

[lukeb28]

Ummm... This is the thread of science, not religion.

[watsonj11]

Ummm... This is the thread of science, not religion.

well you did ask what the point of disproof was, science cannot answer everything!

anyway I like the idea of scientists being able to synthesise stars, imagine the energy from that!

[lukeb28]

What I was asking was the evidence of your disproof.

[watsonj11]

Oh sorry I misunderstood your statement I took it the wrong way

as I said the particle must get to some similar speed with the velocity gained from the black holes gravity

[Viktor_Berg]

Velocity and acceleration are different things. When the photons are attracted by the black hole, they do not increase or decrease their velocity, but gain an angular velocity perpendicular to the center of the black hole. The net velocity is the same, but it's decomposed into a tangential velocity and an angular one. That's all there is to it.

[Markarthian]

Black holes are the most fascinating part of the universe. They are created in the violence of a super nova and live on as a constant disaster never ending. Nothing can satisfy the hunger of one and the more it consumes, the more powerful it is. One of the coolest things is the time dilation their awesome gravity creates. Orbit a black hole close enough and it will slow your passage in time similar to traveling at near light speed. They also slowly shrink as tiny subatomic particles pop in and out of space. These particles are always made in two's and are opposite in every way. When these pop in at the event horizon the antimatter particle falls in destroying some matter in the core with it while the other partical escapes as radiation. This stuff is just way too cool!!

Supernovas are not the solution to explaining the creation of black holes. Sure, they explain the black holes from about 1Mο-500Mο (Mο = mass of the sun), but it doesn't explain the ones larger than 10 million Mο. All black holes need to grow to that size, as there are no stars that leave behind such a monster. There's your problem. Those black holes would at least take 775 million years to reach that size, although there are black holes that weigh a lot more than that and are younger (like 567 million years). The only way to explain those (until someone finds a better one) is a somewhat more spectacular one: the collapse of an entire galaxy. That explains up to 100 million Mο, but we are not there yet, there are even heavier ones. There is no way that there will form a heavier black hole than that in one go, it will need to combine with other black holes to grow to monster sizes like 500-1500 million Μο.

(If you want to read more on this, my information came from recent articles from the magazines "nature" and "NWT magazine")

I'd like to correct you on the fact that black holes actually have a cap on what they can consume at once, hence quasars. These are huge (I mean a couple of hundred galaxies huge) beams of energy coming from around the event horizon at the poles of the black hole.

Also, antimatter annihilation is the coolest, most destructive explosion of energy you'll ever find. (The whole mass of the two particles "dissolve" into energy)

I read somewhere that a neutron star was so massive that despite its size (Which is still pretty DAMN tiny for an astral object) it had a surface smoother than the curve of a new billiard ball.

FTFY and if you were to take a spoonful of that stuff, it'll weigh about 20 times the mass of the earth

Neuron stars are failed black holes pretty much. Their parent star supernova'ed but was just shy of the required mass. They also emit a nasty amount of neutron radiation from their poles. Their poles also switch very rapidly turning these neutron beams into a spiral. Any planet unfortunate enough to be hit by one of these beams would be instantly sterilized of any life.

Yup, these beams are also known as quasars, as also found around black holes. You'd be safe to say that the planet hit by such a thing would no longer exist after that....

[lukeb28]

Supernovas are not the solution to explaining the creation of black holes. Sure, they explain the black holes from about 1Mο-500Mο (Mο = mass of the sun), but it doesn't explain the ones larger than 10 million Mο. All black holes need to grow to that size, as there are no stars that leave behind such a monster. There's your problem. Those black holes would at least take 775 million years to reach that size, although there are black holes that weigh a lot more than that and are younger (like 567 million years). The only way to explain those (until someone finds a better one) is a somewhat more spectacular one: the collapse of an entire galaxy. That explains up to 100 million Mο, but we are not there yet, there are even heavier ones. There is no way that there will form a heavier black hole than that in one go, it will need to combine with other black holes to grow to monster sizes like 500-1500 million Μο.

I never did think about how super massive black holes were made, that is really something! Oh how beautifully complex the universe around us is!

Just one question, how is it you think an entire galaxy would collapse in on itself? Most galaxy's are large collection of stars orbiting a massive black hole, hence the starts orbit doesn't suddenly stop and all of them fall into the core. If there was such a force that could do such a thing, how have we not already seen this?

[okamikk]

I never did think about how super massive black holes were made, that is really something! Oh how beautifully complex the universe around us is!

Just one question, how is it you think an entire galaxy would collapse in on itself? Most galaxy's are large collection of stars orbiting a massive black hole, hence the starts orbit doesn't suddenly stop and all of them fall into the core. If there was such a force that could do such a thing, how have we not already seen this?

maybe, if the black hole's mass exceeds a certain point, the stars' around it fall into the hole, activating a chain reaction that is the cause for the untimely collapse of the galaxy?

[Markarthian]

I never did think about how super massive black holes were made, that is really something! Oh how beautifully complex the universe around us is!

Just one question, how is it you think an entire galaxy would collapse in on itself? Most galaxy's are large collection of stars orbiting a massive black hole, hence the starts orbit doesn't suddenly stop and all of them fall into the core. If there was such a force that could do such a thing, how have we not already seen this?

Very good question, the reason why we are not seeing this happening with normal galaxies is because they spin. Young galaxies are created in a proto stellar nebula, which collapses on itself to create stars. Those stars get a random velocity at their creation, mostly this is an outwards velocity (away from the center of the nebula). But when you have a huge proto stellar nebula, lots of stars will be formed at the centre of it. When that happens there's a good chance that those stars do not have enough outwards velocity to counteract another's gravity, so they all converge on one point, creating a supermassive black hole.

About the spin; because of the law of conservative energy, the closer the stars to the centre are, the faster they spin, thus the further away they "get flung".

maybe, if the black hole's mass exceeds a certain point, the stars' around it fall into the hole, activating a chain reaction that is the cause for the untimely collapse of the galaxy?

That is certainly a possibility, although the increase in mass needed would be quite dramatic. A way I could see that happening is, two black holes colliding with each other. That would temporarily destabilize the galaxy's gravity and after that would increase in mass. The result may not be that the entire galaxy gets eaten in one go, but it will surely get eaten in time.

[okamikk]

Very good question, the reason why we are not seeing this happening with normal galaxies is because they spin. Young galaxies are created in a proto stellar nebula, which collapses on itself to create stars. Those stars get a random velocity at their creation, mostly this is an outwards velocity (away from the center of the nebula). But when you have a huge proto stellar nebula, lots of stars will be formed at the centre of it. When that happens there's a good chance that those stars do not have enough outwards velocity to counteract another's gravity, so they all converge on one point, creating a supermassive black hole.

About the spin; because of the law of conservative energy, the closer the stars to the centre are, the faster they spin, thus the further away they "get flung".

That is certainly a possibility, although the increase in mass needed would be quite dramatic. A way I could see that happening is, two black holes colliding with each other. That would temporarily destabilize the galaxy's gravity and after that would increase in mass. The result may not be that the entire galaxy gets eaten in one go, but it will surely get eaten in time.

that's what i meant, not a massive all-in-one-go collapse, but a gradual congregation of the stars comeing into the black hole, starting with the ones closest moving over several millenia, until they get sucked in and add to the mass of the black hole, increasing t's force and causing stars a bit farther out to start slowing down and getting sucked in. a process like this would last a very long time, but would be faster than a galaxy collapsing on it's own due to entropy, a which is why i said "untimely collapse".

[lukeb28]

About the spin; because of the law of conservative energy, the closer the stars to the center are, the faster they spin, thus the further away they "get flung".

This is true very close to the center (within a radius of about half a light year, maybe less) but further out, the stars actually orbit the same speed as the ones closer in (Something like 225km/sec.). This is where the whole dark matter thing comes from as it suggests that there is much more mass in the galaxy than what is observed. This extra mass causes the outer stars to orbit much faster than what is anticipated with only the mass of the stars within. Some of this mass is accounted for by black holes and planets, but thats only 1% of the mass. the other 99% is unknown and hence called "Dark Matter".

[Kocken926]

Not 99% luke, but still the vast majority. Also, anyone have any ideas how black holes are able to send out radiation? Because appearently they're better at turning matter into energy than the sun.

[Markarthian]

This is true very close to the center (within a radius of about half a light year, maybe less) but further out, the stars actually orbit the same speed as the ones closer in (Something like 225km/sec.). This is where the whole dark matter thing comes from as it suggests that there is much more mass in the galaxy than what is observed. This extra mass causes the outer stars to orbit much faster than what is anticipated with only the mass of the stars within. Some of this mass is accounted for by black holes and planets, but thats only 1% of the mass. the other 99% is unknown and hence called "Dark Matter".

That's very true indeed. But it does not mean that larger mass doesn't result in higher velocities

Also, dark energy sounds extremely dull when translated to Dutch (that's why I always use English terms )

[okamikk]

That's very true indeed. But it does not mean that larger mass doesn't result in higher velocities

Also, dark energy sounds extremely dull when translated to Dutch (that's why I always use English terms )

what is it in dutch?

[M-C]

what is it in dutch?

Donkere energie. I don't like dutch terms either...