Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:37 PM
160 online now:
ooh-child, Tangle, Theodoric (3 members, 157 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Black Hole Saga
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (124981)
07-16-2004 11:34 AM


LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Black holes, those fearsome galactic traps from which not even light can escape, may not be quite so terminally destructive after all, according to cosmologist Stephen Hawking.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/15/hawking.holes.reut/index.html

The explanation will have to wait until next week though when he presents his findings at a black hole conference called GR17. Roger Penrose and John Baez will be speaking, too.

Can Hawking bring any new thinking into BH science, I dare say
he will produce a nice mathematical solution, but with no real world
way of knowing if he is right. What do you think? Otherwise, waiting is our only option...


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nipok, posted 09-14-2004 3:57 AM JIM has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 14 (124984)
07-16-2004 11:53 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (125303)
07-17-2004 4:53 PM


Very Interesting
I've read Stephen's "Universe in a Nutshell" and watched his movie "A Brief History of Time" and they both are quite extraordinary. So, what do I think? I think Stephen is a very promising scientist with an elegant mind to match. I know he's on to something, he always is. I've even got CNN to email alert me when anything about him is posted.

A unified theory is on it's way. Hoo-ray!


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by entwine, posted 07-21-2004 4:33 AM Mission for Truth has not yet responded

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 14 (126166)
07-21-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mission for Truth
07-17-2004 4:53 PM


Re: Very Interesting
I was very intrigued by his statement,
quote:
A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future.

Wonder what he means by that???
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mission for Truth, posted 07-17-2004 4:53 PM Mission for Truth has not yet responded

  
stardog24
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 14 (127386)
07-24-2004 9:32 PM


I was wondering if Hawking's findings negate the possibility of there being multiple universes.
Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 7:42 AM stardog24 has not yet responded

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 14 (127395)
07-24-2004 11:33 PM


Seems Stephen now believes that black holes do not actually open to somewhere else. He now contends that what is sucked in is eventually spit out in mangled form as the bh evaporates. His announcement was rather vague and his fellow scientists say they need to see his calculations before they pass judgement. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm

This message has been edited by entwine, 07-24-2004 10:40 PM


  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 7 of 14 (127446)
07-25-2004 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by stardog24
07-24-2004 9:32 PM


Blackholes
It has been thought, that Blackholes are openings to wormholes that create a vortex affect in space (and perhaps time). In this respect, I've wondered if they weren't simply whirlpools in the spoup of space...like a whirlpool in water or a tornado in a storm. It is moving matter around, but it sounds like now, they don't think to another place.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by stardog24, posted 07-24-2004 9:32 PM stardog24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RingoKid, posted 07-25-2004 8:45 AM SRO2 has responded

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 14 (127455)
07-25-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by SRO2
07-25-2004 7:42 AM


Re: Blackholes
anybody want to buy some fuzzy balls of string...how about one really long one ???

for anybody interested meet me at the edge of the universe

as for directions, just take a straight line in any direction or jump into a black hole

Dress warm if you take the latter route it's really cold and bring some lunch if you take the former as it might take a while...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 7:42 AM SRO2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 9:09 AM RingoKid has not yet responded

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 14 (127462)
07-25-2004 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RingoKid
07-25-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Blackholes
Wormholes are theories. It's not proven that they exist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RingoKid, posted 07-25-2004 8:45 AM RingoKid has not yet responded

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 14 (127999)
07-27-2004 5:13 AM


anything falling into a black hole and assuming it gets reduced to it's basic "string" then by way of the spiralling effect of the black hole in an ever decreasing vortex becomes a very long very dense connection of strings only a planck unit in diamater but infinitely long that stretches all the way to the edge/frontier/horizon of the expanding universe and accounts for the dark matter/energy that we dont see...dark strings
  
Phobos
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 14 (142071)
09-13-2004 2:28 PM


quote:

Wormholes are theories. It's not proven that they exist.

nitpick...
You are correct that wormholes are not proven to exist. But the term "theory" applies to things that are well evidenced/proven. Wormholes are a speculation/hypothesis based on a mathematical solution to the pertinent equations.


  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 14 (142274)
09-14-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JIM
07-16-2004 11:34 AM


BH, WH, and NS
OK, here we go, mouth open up, here comes foot….

Has there ever been documented proof of a Black Hole, Worm Hole, or Neutron Star? Were they not all created as theoretical elements due to a single or small group of complexities that could not be explained in other ways? I recognize that we have found pulsars and quasars but is there any proof that either phenomenon must be neutron based? Wasn’t the original reason we speculated the existence of these was because we did not think the universe was expanding as fast as it now turns out it actually is so wouldn’t the new realization that the universe may be expanding faster than originally thought negate the base reasoning behind why these phenomenon were first speculated into existence?

I realize I am oversimplifying the physics behind the life cycles of stars but am I correct that black holes and Neutron Stars are in fact still theoretical entities that may or may not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JIM, posted 07-16-2004 11:34 AM JIM has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 09-14-2004 8:29 AM nipok has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 14 (142286)
09-14-2004 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nipok
09-14-2004 3:57 AM


Re: BH, WH, and NS
Has there ever been documented proof of a Black Hole, Worm Hole, or Neutron Star?

You might be interested in this. In it they describe a "proof" of the existence of the central black hole in our galaxy. As you know, "proof" simply means very strong support and is still tenative but becoming more certain every day.

Worm holes are simply constructs and TTBOMK, none have ever been observed.

And here is an article on measurements taken that suggest that Neutron Stars can be very small. They were able to measure the ratio of mass to radius for the object.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nipok, posted 09-14-2004 3:57 AM nipok has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nipok, posted 09-15-2004 10:01 PM jar has not yet responded

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 14 (142625)
09-15-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
09-14-2004 8:29 AM


Re: BH, WH, and NS
Thank you iar the links were very helpful. I don't see how we can determine the diameter of the center of mass that something of less density orbits around. We can see a star and see its orbit and infer from its trajectory the relative mass density of the object it orbits but from this distance away how can we be so sure as to the diameter of the central object. Does anyone know how the diameter of the more dense object is calculated if we can't see the object?

Could there not be planets or moons 500 or 5000 times the size of our star? We know there are other stars hundreds of times the size of our Sun but how do we know that there can't be large planetoids that are the basis for what we see in the cosmos?

Not debating the existence of the BH,WH,and NS, just wondering how we have proven their existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 09-14-2004 8:29 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019