11
   

What do galaxies orbit?

 
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:49 pm
Sorry Stuh, I'm mot clear enough I guess.

In my universe when densities (energies) get high enough (think black holes) the atoms electrons and any other constituents of what we laughingly call "normal matter and energies" disassociate. This brings you into the realm of Quantum Mechanics and some of the laws of "normal" physics don't apply.

Possibly it would be fair to call it "Chaotic" but I don't really think so. Just different laws and interactions.

When for some reason or another this density decreases then "normal" matter with the laws that we are familiar with take over.

This aparently is the mechanism that the "Big Bangers" use to make their universe.

I aver that the event when quantum mechanics gives way to classical physics is what is called the "Big Bang".

However I do not think that you need a whole universe to do it. I suspect that a galaxy has sufficient mass to bring normal matter to the point of disassociation. This makes a "Black Hole" both the end and beginning of a galaxy. Merely a local event Exclamation
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 07:55 pm
Quote:
This brings you into the realm of Quantum Mechanics and some of the laws of "normal" physics don't apply.


Without bosons the fundamental forces would not exist. A lot of big bang theorists seem to discretely insert the claim that the forces came into existence one by one as their mediating bosons came into existence, suggesting that bosonic particles are not capable of existing under such extreme conditions. Are you agreeing with this, and saying that it is also the case inside black holes?

Quote:
Possibly it would be fair to call it "Chaotic" but I don't really think so.


QM is based on randomness, which is chaotic. Like you, I don't believe that it is really random though.

Quote:
I aver that the event when quantum mechanics gives way to classical physics is what is called the "Big Bang".


What about inflation? Do you think that our universe is itself inflating from a large big bang, and at the same time there are millions of smaller big bangs being formed in local places when matter accretes too much, resulting in local inflationary bubbles?

Quote:
However I do not think that you need a whole universe to do it. I suspect that a galaxy has sufficient mass to bring normal matter to the point of disassociation. This makes a "Black Hole" both the end and beginning of a galaxy. Merely a local event Exclamation


I'm pretty sure that infant black holes are actually less massive than large stars
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 07:41 pm
Stuh--One at a time

1) Basically yes, You may remember that a couple weeks ago we had a brief discussion on "gravity". This is where it was coming from. Also "Big Bang" expansonary theories must posulate a period or a region when or where gravity doesn't exist. This is necessary to have the expansion faster than light which is aparently necessary to make the theory fit the observations. Rolling Eyes

2)We agree much more than I thought we did Very Happy

3) Nope, Don't think it's inflating. I think that there are errors in the interpretations of the observations Sad and in the simple mechanical causes of these errors)

4) I think that a black hole will grow sufficiently to consume a galaxy. It will probably grow until the forces that tend to tear it apart exceed the forces that hold it together. If something happens that disturbs gravity, lack of bosuns,immobilization of particles, rapid rotation,Hawking radiation, or something else it it would make it a lot easier to "blow up".

A little further explaination--

A mass the size of our Sun is reputed (Carl Sagan) to be able to support a fusion reaction until the element iron (Fe) results.

Larger stars can (reputedly) make successively heavier elements. when you get up into the heaviest elements, Uranium etc. they probably can be made only in Black Holes or "Big Bangs". If it turns out that a black hole with the mass of a galaxy is sufficient to "fuse" or manufacture uranium then there is no need for any larger concentrations of normal matter or energy (what we know as normal)

Probably won't get the Universe rebuilt tonight. Smile Best, M
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Oct, 2006 10:50 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
Stuh--One at a time

1) Basically yes, You may remember that a couple weeks ago we had a brief discussion on "gravity". This is where it was coming from. Also "Big Bang" expansonary theories must posulate a period or a region when or where gravity doesn't exist. This is necessary to have the expansion faster than light which is aparently necessary to make the theory fit the observations. Rolling Eyes


I don't think we did, are you sure that was me? Anyway, you're wrong about it being necessary to dispell gravity for the theory. Inflation is not believed to be a force and it's effect, therefore, cannot be summed with forces. Now, it is true that forces can hold bits of energy together and prevent them from being torn apart by inflation...this is why people and everything else are not ballooning up, because the electromagnetic force keeps tugging us back together even though space is sliding out around us. But an inflationary "effect" strong enough to rip apart a singularity many times faster than light speed would not have to worry much about gravity holding it back together.

Quote:
3) Nope, Don't think it's inflating. I think that there are errors in the interpretations of the observations Sad and in the simple mechanical causes of these errors)


That's a possibility I haven't ruled out either, although I am more in favor of inflation because of the professional concensus.

Quote:
4) I think that a black hole will grow sufficiently to consume a galaxy.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a star has an event horizon just like a black hole but it is smaller than the radius of the star. After a star burns off all it's hydrogen fuel it can no longer maintain the outward pressure necessary to prevent a gravitational collapse, creating a supernova in which a large percent of it's outer mass is ejected into space. Although the star is less massive it is now more dense, having ejected the less dense outer convection layers, and so the event horizon can now be outside of the radius...making it a black hole. There is no reason why this would start sucking up things around it any more than the original star did...in fact, it attracts less because it is less massive than it was before. But since there isn't any limit on the amount of mass it can collected, a "lucky" black hole like one in the center of a galaxy could grow a great deal.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 07:21 pm
stuh, please remember that I (in this particular case) am reiterating my understanding of other peoples more or less standard versions of the big bang theory.

Aparently in order to expand the early universe (Plank time or there abouts) it is necessary that the infinitesimial point, 6 cc sphere,bubble or whatever the particular theory claims as a starting point must expand faster than the speed of light. Since relativity theory prevents this in the universe therefore there must not be gravity as our universe is defined by the various forces, gravity being one of them.

Since the only thing around in the immediate neighborhood is quantum stuff (whatever it is) I then suspect that if normal matter is disassociated then the force or field that we call gravity must not exist at that time.

As far as gravity can prevent the explosion I am afraid it could, given sufficient mass. No reason it can't run to infinity. But when you get sufficient mass to disassociate normal matter then gravity may disappear also. That may be why we cannot run a black hole to infinity!

As far as believing in expansion simply because most people do is begging the question. There are still a few PHDs that don't!

IMO In a Diestic culture espousing a universe that has no beginning is not likely to prove profitable. I am not trying to bay at the moon. Just tying to understand a Universe---logically Exclamation observably Exclamation
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 08:20 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
stuh, please remember that I (in this particular case) am reiterating my understanding of other peoples more or less standard versions of the big bang theory.


ok, understood

Quote:
Aparently in order to expand the early universe (Plank time or there abouts) it is necessary that the infinitesimial point, 6 cc sphere,bubble or whatever the particular theory claims as a starting point must expand faster than the speed of light.


Yes

Quote:
Since relativity theory prevents this in the universe therefore there must not be gravity as our universe is defined by the various forces, gravity being one of them.


Like I said before, this is wrong!!!

I repeat:
The theory of special relativity does not prevent spacetime from inflating faster than c. It only says that energy cannot travel through space faster than c.

Quote:
Since the only thing around in the immediate neighborhood is quantum stuff (whatever it is) I then suspect that if normal matter is disassociated then the force or field that we call gravity must not exist at that time.


There is no such thing as "quantum matter." All matter/energy is equally affected by the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics describes small effects such as the probability density of individual subatomic particles, but since all matter/energy is believed to be composed of fermions or bosons (the force carriers), QM necessarily applies to all matter.

So you can't talk about "QM matter" vs "normal matter," although there is a natural dichotomy of matter and that is between normal matter and antimatter, which is exactly the same in every regard except that it has the opposite charge causing it to cancel out and annhilate regular matter producing gamma rays.

Quote:
As far as gravity can prevent the explosion I am afraid it could, given sufficient mass.


There is no explosion in the big bang theory. It is an inflation of the framework of spacetime, independent from the matter and energy inside space. Therefore it is completely impossible for a force such as the strong nuclear force, the strongest force in the universe, to slow down inflation...

In the case of gravity, I cannot answer quite so absolutely, because we do not for sure know how gravity operates. According to the standard model hypothesis gravity operates like the other forces and also cannot effect inflation. But according to the contradictory theory of general relativity, gravity also has the ability to warp spacetime like inflation (the only force that is postulated to have this ability) and therefore it could probably interfere with inflation somewhat. However, it would still be completely insignificant because the strength of gravity is so incredibly insignificant compared to the "effect" (I cannot call it a force, because it's not a force) of inflation.

Quote:
No reason it can't run to infinity. But when you get sufficient mass to disassociate normal matter then gravity may disappear also. That may be why we cannot run a black hole to infinity!


I'm not sure what is meant by dissociated exactly. Dissociated to what level? I'm not sure we really know how much matter can be dissociated. We haven't observed anything in a more dissociated state than fermions and bosons. Unless bosons can be further dissociated, the forces will still be in effect. Since we haven't identified the graviton there cannot be much said about it dissociating. The curious number of unique

he fact that subatomic particles can transform into other particles, as opposed to always being built of other particles, combined with the number of of unique particles at the lowest level we know of, does strongly encourage something like string theory where particles are considered to be much more abstract things, vibrations.

Quote:
IMO In a Diestic culture espousing a universe that has no beginning is not likely to prove profitable. I am not trying to bay at the moon. Just tying to understand a Universe---logically Exclamation observably Exclamation


Agreed!
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 08:33 pm
Stuh, I lost a couple of paragraphs Crying or Very sad

Your third paragraph "Correct me if I'm wrong"---

A star doesn't "burn off " hydrogen". The Sun is fusing it (fusion) into helium. There are several stages in element formation. The first is hydrogen into helium. The fusion process goes on until our sun forms the element "iron".(Fe) There may be a few supernovas along the way.

The heavier elements must be made in a more massive "factory" Bigger stars, Black Holes, or big bangs and perhaps by other methods.

IF-and a big IF it turns out that there is enough mass in a galaxy to bring about the disassociation of normal matter then there is no need for a big bang Exclamation . The math will have to be dealt with to show this! Probably beyond me. I suspect that somebody has already done it and I am keeping an eye out for it.

We did talk before in the "Black Hole" thread which is still featured on A2K.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 09:35 pm
Stuh,

When I said "disassciate" I mean -to break down the atoms into the various sub-atomic particles. Quarks for instance.

Basically what is done in a supercollider.

Re your comment on relativity. "this is wrong" Agreed, but have you noticed what this does to a definition of "space" or "spacetime". Since gravity (in the "BB" theory) defines space-time and the Universe the "BB" becomes the point where time and space began and consequently gravity began. This is still pretty much the standard "BB" espoused by Hawkings as well as anybody. (A Brief History of Time)

IMO it implies that there is a location outside of space-time. IF and a big IF Smile there exists a location outside of space and time, then there would be a boundary or horizon of some sorts between space-time and not spacetime. this would mean either that our universe is bounded, or "not space-time" is another dimension Confused I aver that the boundary is similar to the "change of state" of what we call "normal matter"

I agree with Einstein completely as far as relativity. It's the "BB" and some of its assumptions that I have trouble with. One of which is that you have to be outside time and space to make a BB. (I can put a "Black Hole" wherever I want to) Razz

You noticed that #7 is unbounded in space or time :wink:
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 10:04 pm
Quote:
A star doesn't "burn off " hydrogen". The Sun is fusing it (fusion) into helium. There are several stages in element formation. The first is hydrogen into helium. The fusion process goes on until our sun forms the element "iron".(Fe) There may be a few supernovas along the way.

The heavier elements must be made in a more massive "factory" Bigger stars, Black Holes, or big bangs and perhaps by other methods.


I purposely put the word "burn" in quotes as a metaphor for the stellar thermonuclear reactions in the proton-proton chain reaction because weren't specifically talking about that.

The elements that are created are related to binding energy. Take a look at a graph of binding energy, it's interesting. A star does not have multiple supernovas. Our sun will never have a supernova because it's not large enough (off the top of my head, I think it's going to become a red dwarf or something). Heaver elements are created by fusion in the core and ejected during a supernova because of the excess energy and spread throughout the galaxy this way. Recent research has led us to believe that actually a very significant portion of the heavy elements (perhaps a majority) are not ejected during supernova but rather by massive convection currents which are like shovels that scoop out heavy elements from the core and hurl them into space. Black holes and big bangs don't create heavy elements.

Quote:
Since gravity (in the "BB" theory) defines space-time and the Universe the "BB" becomes the point where time and space began and consequently gravity began. This is still pretty much the standard "BB" espoused by Hawkings as well as anybody. (A Brief History of Time)


That's a sand castle of ifs, buts and maybes if you ask me.

Quote:
IMO it implies that there is a location outside of space-time.


Don't even bother trying to make guesses as to what was BEFORE the big bang. It's bad enough that we pretend to actually know what happened at that time, because we really don't understand it at all. Nobody does. A lot of people have ideas but nobody knows.

Quote:
I agree with Einstein completely as far as relativity. It's the "BB" and some of its assumptions that I have trouble with. One of which is that you have to be outside time and space to make a BB. (I can put a "Black Hole" wherever I want to) Razz


Well I doubt that he would agree with you on relativity. The BB theory is not that specific and does not say anything about how a big bang would be created, and certainly does not imply that it is even possible to create a big bang...because that would imply that it could be more than just a singleton event, which is not part of the theory...you can't just add your own opinions to the theory and then use them as reasons for not liking the theory. If you could put something at a place outside of space then that is a contradiction; that point would be part of space by definition.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:40 am
Markarian's Chain
Across the heart of the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies lies a striking string of galaxies known as Markarian's Chain.

http://bigpicture.caltech.edu/media/

If you haven't found the following site, you are missing wonderful photos and information. Its the first place I visit each morning.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

BBB
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 06:09 pm
stuh, Remember I was reiterating other peoples theories.

For me there was no Big Bang so consequently I would not intentionally argue "before the BB". I will use their math though and their math assumes that before the BB there were no forces and that the force or field of gravity appeared after about a half second. I assume that if there were no forces then; if we duplicate the same conditions now there should also be an absence of forces or fields.

No doubt that it is a sand castle or worse. IMO it's darned near Gospel truth :wink: . Yet it's all part of more or less standard BB theory Confused

At this point we also don't know that the heavier elements are not created in a BB or Black Hole type event. I think it reasonable to assume that they may be. At least in portions of it.

In order for me to illustrate my reasoning lets build a star right here in four dimensions.

Start with an atom of hydrogen (I got plenty) cool it sufficiently so that if it encounters another atom they won't bounce apart. About 3.5 deg Kelvin ought to do it. (got plenty of that too)
This pair of atoms is now a massive object. Gravity assures me that this group will continue to aggregate. As it aggregates it will get warmer. Same principle as your air conditioner. Concentrate energy from a large volume to a small one. Eventually our star will accumulate enough energy and pressure for fusion to begin. The rest is history Smile

Now lets take our hypothetically homebuilt star and keep aggregating matter. (I realize I am oversimplifing something awful but time and space constraints :wink: preclude a complete examination of steller mechanics.

Eventually our star will aggregate sufficient mass so that the accellerations due to gravity will exceed the speed of light. This WILL happen. When light and energy can no longer get away from our star we can call it a "Black Hole". Logical name Exclamation

Now I extrapolate--- The black hole will keep on aggregating matter and energy (I realize that they are now interchangeble) until our normal "baryonic?" matter disassociates into into quarks, leptons and the whole conglomeration of sub-atomic particles. Now the problem becomes "Is gravity a characteristic of quantisized or disassociated matter" Question

Idea IF at a certain point of density if gravity disappeared in the core then the "black hole" would fly apart. Actually what I think it would probably do is fly apart till the core became normal matter and then it would rebound. (There are Quasars acting like this as we speak) Each rebound would get more and more violent (simply due to inertia) until finally a galaxy or a Universe was formed. It probably wouldn't happen overnight. More'n likely it'd take billions of shots to do it.

There are at least two more possible ways of taking apart a black hole. Hawking radiation is one. Centrifugal force due the conservation of angular momentum is another. At this point take your pick Confused

This is more or less pure speculation but it does give you an over view of how a "creation event" could be purely a local event within four dimensional space time.

Personally I suspect that some Quasars are actually rebounding galaxies that are now being observed. Their mass (as determined by the "red shift" is similar to a large galaxy and their expansion phase has been observed to expand to a diameter similar to that of the solar system.

Basically I think that what the BBer's regard as a "Singularity", a one time deal I regard as a local event, to be repeated ad nauseum Smile

I don't understand why you think Einstein and I wouldn't agree. Until you get to the "Cosmological Constant" and "Socialism" any way Confused

Thanks, you are being a wonderful "devils advocate" M
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 06:26 pm
Yes BBB, I have had it in my favorites file for quite a while.

I also like the "Deep Field" page. I agrees with me philosophically :wink:
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 11:43 pm
Re: Markarian's Chain
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
If you haven't found the following site, you are missing wonderful photos and information. Its the first place I visit each morning.


I'm aware of it Smile Last time I was there I wasted way too much time browsing through the previous history and saving hundreds of pictures that I liked to my HD! Haha. I found a really nice high res pic of Mars which I did some photo editing on to make into a nice desktop background..

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8923/spiritedit1yj1.th.jpg

akaMechsmith:

Quote:
stuh, Remember I was reiterating other peoples theories.


Forget everything that those people told you, because it's all wrong. That is not what the big bang is. Get over it!

Quote:
Yet it's all part of more or less standard BB theory


Nope, it's not.

Quote:
At this point we also don't know that the heavier elements are not created in a BB or Black Hole type event. I think it reasonable to assume that they may be. At least in portions of it.


That's ridiculous. All the evidence suggests the contrary.

Quote:
Eventually our star will aggregate sufficient mass so that the accellerations due to gravity will exceed the speed of light. This WILL happen. When light and energy can no longer get away from our star we can call it a "Black Hole".


Huh? No it will not ever do that, and that is not what a black hole is! Are you crazy?

Quote:
our normal "baryonic?" matter disassociates into into quarks, leptons and the whole conglomeration of sub-atomic particles.


Baryons are subatomic particles. Apparently nothing dissociates into quarks even under the most extreme conditions, this is a rule known as confinement.

Quote:
ow the problem becomes "Is gravity a characteristic of quantisized or disassociated matter" Question


Huh? Quantized matter? Where do you come up with this stuff?? There is no such thing. Gravity acts on energy. ALL energy. And ALL matter is a form of energy. That includes quarks, bosons (photons), you name it.

Quote:
Basically I think that what the BBer's regard as a "Singularity", a one time deal I regard as a local event, to be repeated ad nauseum


Well, you don't even seem to know what the big bang is. :/
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 06:49 pm
Stuh,

I am not setting myself up as an expert. I hope I never did. I am a pretty good mechanic though and I understand how mechanical devices work fairly well. I regard the diatoms, the trees, and the cosmos as mechanical devices. Mechanical devices don't have singularities!

I) If you wouldn't mind go ahead and describe your "Black Hole" or your "Big Bang" If you have one of course.

2) Ridiculous?--crazy?-- I'm incredulous Confused

3)Who's rules Question

4) That's what supercolliders are supposed to do, isn't it Question

5) I am quite aware that there is a "matter energy equivalence". Hell thats assumed in E=Mc squared isn't it? Shown at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

6) I damn sure I don't know. Neither do quite a few other people that write books about it. Crying or Very sad

7) If you say I am wrong, crazy, and ridiculous but don't back up your assertion with observable and extrapolatable reasoning then thats religious. I mentioned that earlier. I have no interest in a religious education at all Exclamation
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 08:08 pm
1) I am not going to attempt to explain the complete theory behind the big bang or black holes. I would probably make some mistakes if I did. I have merely been pointing out the misconceptions about the theories that I have noticed you to make. Why should I rewrite my responses, when they are still up?

2) a) The composition of stars, planets, and every other type of matter we have observed in the universe suggests that star systems formed from pure hydrogen, with only trace amounts of heavy elements from cosmic rays which come from preexisting systems. We have a fully working explanation for the creation of heavy elements by stars.

b) It is not mathematically possible for heavy elements to exist during the early phases of the big bang according to the big bang theory, which you are presuming for this statement.

c) I don't see any reason why a black hole could not create heavy elements through fusion (although I dont know) but there would be no way for them to escape the black hole.

3) Einstein's rules...special relativity says that matter cannot be accelerated faster than the speed of light. You said you believed this before.

4) No. They have not been able to dissociate anything into free quarks. They have deduced that it is impossible for quarks to exist in a free state and this law is called confinement which I already said.

5) Apparently you did not know that gravity acts on energy which is not in the form of matter.

6) I would bet that most people who have written a book about the big bang theory know what the big bang theory is about. I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I'm just saying, if they wrote a book about the theory, they probably understand at least the most basic concepts of the theory. Numerous times you have referred to the big bang as an explosion which can be affected by forces, indicating that you did not understand the most basic concept of the theory.

7) I have not been telling you what to think, I have only been pointing out logical contradictions based on your assumptions, and misunderstandings of theories that you mention.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:57 pm
Stuh, This format seems to work well---

1) I think I understand the "BB" theory fairly well. I simply put it in mechanical terms rather than mathematical. But I do attempt to point out where it is ambiguous.

2) Agreed, but I see no basic difference between the temperatures and pressures between massive stars and black holes. A black hole is merely a heavier and hotter star which is simply an accumalation of matter, primarily hydrogen. We just can't see it, only feel it. Gravity and the red shift of light explains it adequetly. IMO natch Smile .

c) I guess I wasn't clear again Embarrassed Agreed, it would take some cooling and expansion to take place before matter could possibly exist. The same can be said of a Black Hole. Matter could not exist as we know it in a Black Hole either. And I gave you three possible ways to take one apart!

3) Einsteins rules say in the universe--They don't mention out of space-time. Since the BB contains all space and all time and all forces the rule doesn't hold momentarily. And if you go along with that I have a bridge to sell you :wink:

4) I think we are getting closer. Whether or not it's possible, given the constraints of our immediate environment I can't judge. But I think this is just a mechanical limitation. We currently have no matter that would withstand the temperatures and pressures necessary. Since all we have to deal with is matter and energies than have (for lack of a better word) "condensed"out of the primordal soup it's unlikely that we can come up with material that is good enough to take apart matter.

5) Yes I did. That is the basis of the Gravitational "red shift". I also mentioned the Einstein-Eddington observations in the South African eclipse of 1929.

6)a I know of it as an expansion of space--Not within space. I think I mentioned that also.
b)A frontal wave of temperatures approaching the infinite and a speed faster lhan light IMO can fairly be called an explosion.
c) Personally this is my biggest single quarrel with the concept. The BB assumes a region of no forces and a time of no time. That is the only way they can get matter to travel "within the Universe" as fast as they seem to think it's travelling Exclamation

7) Thanks,
a) The "expanding universe" theory requires a BB "explosion" (sorry Embarrassed ) in order to propel the matter within the universe at the aparent speeds of recession which is observed as the "red shift".
I think that the red shift is only an optical illusion caused by the travelling of light through eons of spacetime.

One more paragraph of simple mechanical explanation Smile

A flywheel is a mechanical device for storing energy. (I trust you are familiar with them). You can put energy into a flywheel by rotating it and take it out by slowing it down. Therre are simple mechanical limitations as to how much energy can be stored in a given flywheel. When you exceed these limitations you no longer will have a flywheel.

A Black Hole is a device that stores energy. You can increase the amount of energy in a given black hole by throwing energy or matter into it. You may be able to get it out by "Hawking Radiation". When you exceed the amount of energy that a black hole can store you will no longer have a Black Hole.

Due to the law of conservation of motion as it pertains to angular momentum eventually the rotation of the black hole and centrifugal force (merely another aspect of the law) the "Black Hole" will come apart when centrifugal force exceeds the gravitational force. I am satisfied that that will happen eventually. However I was looking for an easier way to take it apart. I reason that if the BBer's can cancel gravity under some conditions then I'd ought to be able to. After all fair is fair, right. :wink:
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 07:18 pm
I'm afraid it is useless for me to continue debating this with you because I can only repeat myself so many times...and when I point out the contradictions in your logic, you just ignore them. I think you're being religious about this.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 06:37 am
Stuh,

Probably Sad
0 Replies
 
djcall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 10:49 am
@aperson,
Glaxies orbit each other. This explains why stars appear that we have not seen before. It also explains why we see so called "black holes."
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:08 am
@djcall,
Whahoh! Talk about bumping a thread!!! ****, this thing is way old...

Well, thanks for your help anyway. Better 3 years late than never... Haha.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 09:59:05