Black Holes

Hi vengor: I believe the math genius rarely uses an analogy. Analogies are for the math impaired like me. Sometimes the best possible analogy is a poor illustration.
By some definitions of "not in motion", stuff does fall. Since the Earth is rotating the Sun, The sun is rotating the galaxy, The galaxy is rotating the local group of galaxies which is moving toward the great attractor, "not in motion" is hard to visualize except in our immediate vicinity. Gravity acts far beyond our immediate vicinity at least slightly. Neil

Then maybe I rephrase to "motionless relative to the earth"

Up to about 10 million miles from Earth, things motionless with respect to Earth's poles do fall (spiral in) toward Earth (in a curved path) unless they pass very close to our moon. At greater than about ten million miles the gravity of the sun is greater, unless quite close to an other planet. Neil

And i'm wondering how a bend in space would explain that.

If you go to this site below you will find that black holes do collide. Both small and super massive black holes can join together to make even more powerful giants.

http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=11663

There are many other sites that will prove the joining of black holes. New findings suggest that the creation of black holes is increasing exponentially therefore the collision effect of the black holes also is increasing in the same probability. Most influential black holes a formed from super massive stars exploding which I am sure you all know. They usually explode anywhere between 6-12 billion years from their creation. The universe is reported to be between 12 - 15 billion years of age so there must be a high percentage of the super massive start are at the point where they become unstable and explode causing massive black holes. Millions of these black holes are forming in the older formations of the universe and this process is going to continue to accelerate.

I have a theory that black holes eventually grow in such great #'s the universe reverses it's expansion, causing black hole after black hole to collide and join together till all mass of the universe hits singularity. The current big bang theory states that in the beginning before the (bang) there was a massive dense singularity. So you have the universe at one single point (singularity) just like the mass of black holes. We know that black holes explode when it is releasing more energy (through radiation) than it is receiving by absorbing surrounding matter. Like it was stated in the other postings, a black hole is an explosion held together by gravity and once there is not enough energy to hold the mass at singularity there is an explosion beyond comprehension! Just imagine if the whole universe was incased in a super massive black hole and because there is no matter left for the black hole to consume (all the matter has been consumed), then eventually (billions - trillions of years later) the black hole would loose enough energy so that it could not hold itself together. This would cause what we know today to be the Big Bang!!!!! That would also mean that just like everything in the universe there is death and rebirth. Why would you think that there was a beginning to the universe? Nothing in life just comes from nothing; it is part of a cycle. The reason that there is no proof of the beginning is because there was no beginning at all, it was a rebirth. This process could have been created (by a supreme being) at some point in time but I seriously do not believe that this big bang was the first big bang. The universe has cycled in this way for trillions and trillions of years. We all believe one way or another that something always has been (infinite). You must think that either god has always been or you believe energy has always been. Creation can not be proved, it can only be believed. All I can do is try to explain the process that was created by (god or the "energy"). This theory has only been able to exist because of the recent findings of colliding black holes and the rapid creation increase of black holes in the universe. Also to add a philosophical element to this theory; that all things in universe cycle, so why would the universe it self not live by its own example. Please comment on this theory! I have lots of facts to back this up, but I would love to really test this theory. Rebuttal anyone???

Welcome to able2know mikeryan: You mentioned several things, I had not heard before, but that proves little as I am far from an expert.
If super massive black holes explode into many black holes of a few solar mass each, then black hole numbers may be increasing exponenially. Did you mean to imply that?
If not, the number of black holes is increasing linearly, as the number of 5 solar mass stars being born is probably not increasing, and may be decreasing for the visible Universe.
The gravity of a 5 solar mass black hole is the same as the gravity of a 5 solar mass star, except very close to the black hole so I would not expect that the expansion of the Universe will reverse because of more black holes, but it may reverse far in our future for some other reason. Neil

I believe that the best measurements to date indicate a "flat" universe. That is, it will not collapse back upon itself.

http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/a44_ub.html

"A universe which expands forever is known as an open universe and has Omega <1. Its spacetime continuum has what astronomers call 'negative' curvature. A universe in which the expansion is halted is known as a closed universe and spacetime has 'positive' curvature. A closed universe has its expansion halted because it contains so much mass that its combined force of gravity overwhelms all other forces. In this case Omega >1. A third possibility exists, although, in practice, it is no different from the open case. It is known as the 'flat' universe and occurs if the universe contains just enough matter to halt the expansion after an infinite period of time. This special condition defines the boundary between the open and closed cases. Current estimates suggest that the average density of the universe may, in fact, equal the critical density."

Book mark.

Here I was thinking gravity was simply caused by mass
(Just kidding, I know no scientist so far KNOWS what gravity is, and the explanations so far seem...inconclusive
Anyway, about creation. I hear in quantum mechanics, things DO have a tendency to spontaneously appear out of NOTHING. Creation. This might indicate that the Big Bang was in fact a beginning rather than a rebirth.

(rather off to current flow of conversation, but in topic...)

When I was eight, I saw a documentary on wormholes. To my understanding, the theory of wormholes is that space could be curved, and wormholes are shortcuts between two places. Could black holes act like wormholes, and suck everything in and leave it stranded in a different place, or perhaps in another dimension?

It could, but then it would be a wormhole. Putting things in another dimension wouldn't make much sense, because you'd either have to increase the number of dimensions it exists in which i'm fairly sure would be nearly impossible or move it through dimensions which would leave either a perfectly flat, 2-dimensional or 1-dimensional line/plane in our worl. I suppose it could just put them in an entirely new set of dimensions though...

-
your foolish bickering will not get you anywhere. Not to act all high and mighty but, rather than discolse your already obtained knowleedge, go try and find more out on the subject. As for the fool who stated:

"we have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART"

it haas come to my attention that you are a bitter old man who fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down

O-/-<

Heehee. He called someone stupid. I'm not quite sure who that person is though, becaues he wasn't very specific. Maybe he was calling everyone on the board stupid... That would be pretty funny. Yup. Calling people stupid is always funny.

Speaking of big black holes, did anyone catch the Starr Jones wedding?

States ReX:



In quantum mechanics things dont appear out of nothing. What you are refering to could be where EMR urns into matter. This of course comes from Einsteins theories involving the famous equation: E=mc^2. This equation relates energy (E), mass (m) and the speed of light (c). It's possible you know all this and that was a waste of time.

Anyway, this equation suggests that matter and EMR are related which of course they are. The old rule "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" comes to mind. That is wrong. Matter can be created but not from nothing. Under certain circumstances a photon will "split" (for want of a better word) to become a positron and an electron. This process is easily reversed (I think) as postrons are antimatter and they tend to react rather violently towards matter (in which case they go back to a photon).

I think that's enough ramble for today. I was almost tempted to write a lot more crap but decided against it. Some of what I said might be wrong so correct me if any of it is. Wrong that is. Not crap.

Hope that helps.

Actually, things do appear out of NOTHING, and then disappear again shortly thereafter. Or particle meets antiparticle, disappears (innto nothing), and close by another particle pair appears out of nothing moments later.

Years ago I heard the idea of white holes, also a lot of fun to play with philosophically. Another universe perhaps existing from there on on. But This is Science & Math, so...

As for creation, the radiation that emanates from a black hole is a concrete example of particles and their counterparts appearing and disappearing is it not?

It depends on whether you view the radiation as being from virtual particles being annihilated, or normal radiation extremely red-shifted. (This is a recollection, you may want to fact-check it.)

Einherjar, light is not nothing. These reactions cause photons to appear or disappear. So the particles are not appearing out of nothing.

I thought he was talking about particles winking in and out due to the vibrations of strings as theorized by string theory.