junk dna

You may mean that you can write e v o lu t ion exists whether you read it or not. There is a lot of thought neceesary to even type in this domain let alone reason as well but keep going a black hole it is likely not the same epistemology of the ontology at. Since past and click even a definition of evolution as involution offen goes undernoticed

Pretty neat stuff, thanks!Do you know of any simulations that show the changes in the position of the event horizons as the black holes near each other? That NCSA webpage reveals that energy formerly within the black holes *does* escape, if I'm interpreting the escaping photon diagram properly, but it would be interesting to see how the event horizons actually change.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
When 2 black holes collide, wouldn't you get 1 big one?

​

Mark

---

id imagine theyd create a reverse black hole since theyd be switching eachothers polarity and most likely in the process creating antigravity.however the rate at which the universe is spreading is gradually slowing down and will eventually come back upon itself and most likely create a big bang when it becomes as compact as is physically possible.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
id imagine theyd create a reverse black hole since theyd be switching eachothers polarity and most likely in the process creating antigravity.

​

however the rate at which the universe is spreading is gradually slowing down and will eventually come back upon itself and most likely create a big bang when it becomes as compact as is physically possible.

​

---

But the modelled physics show one hole, with the sum of the mass of the two. Let's not let our imaginations run riot Regarding compactness, the mass of black holes is currently thought to exist at a singularity. All you can have is a more massive singularity, so the mass takes up no more space anyway.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

something tells me we dont know much about black holes, perhaps because we cant get close enough to them to actually study them. this 'event horizon' you speak of i am convinced is just a name of something we think exists to explain something we dont understand. like god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by werd19:
something tells me we dont know much about black holes, perhaps because we cant get close enough to them to actually study them. this 'event horizon' you speak of i am convinced is just a name of something we think exists to explain something we dont understand. like god.

---

The event horizon is merely the point from a gravitational centre (of gravity) where the escape velocity = c. c being the speed of light. What's so hard to understand? This means that the mass of a black hole is well inside a sphere of total blackness.Go out into your garden, pick up a stone & throw it as hard as you can, straight up. You will not achieve the escape velocity of the earth (well below that of c), & the stone will fall back to earth. Just as the light inside a black holes event horizon will.What's so hard about that?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

hmm ok thats nice and wonderful.
do we even know for sure that it is gravity which pulls light into a black hole? because the mass of light is negligible it seems to me that the affect of a foce that acts upon mass would also be negligible.
i dont pretend to know all the laws that govern our existance. if you know a few more then me, plz share

One of the predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity is that gravity is a side effect of the shape of space, and that the shape of space is influenced by mass, and that therefore light, which has no mass, should be influenced by gravity as much as mass.This was verified by Author Eddington in 1919 when he went to Africa to observe a total solar eclipse. He made observations verifying that the path of light from a star whose position lay close to the edge of the sun was bent by the sun's gravity by the predicted amount. Eddington's achievement made headlines at the time. He was knighted and became Sir Arthur Eddington.The opinion today is that Eddington's claim of verifying relativity wasn't justified because the equipment he had available contributed too much error for a definitivie conclusion, but the bending of light by gravity has been verified literally hundreds of times since then to many decimal points of accuracy.--Percy

KingPenguin writes:

---

however the rate at which the universe is spreading is gradually slowing down and will eventually come back upon itself and most likely create a big bang when it becomes as compact as is physically possible.

---

Scientists a couple years ago were surprised to discover that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. The causes and implications are still being worked out.--Percy

"But the modelled physics show one hole, with the sum of the mass of the two. Let's not let our imaginations run riotRegarding compactness, the mass of black holes is currently thought to exist at a singularity. All you can have is a more massive singularity, so the mass takes up no more space anyway."
--Well contrasting your first statement and your second with the definition of a singularity, I think there is a bit of an inconsistency. Being that a singularity is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume as well as having space and time becoming infinitely distorted. I don't think adding two infinite quantities is going to have any effect. Either that or I am just playing with semantics.------------------

Percy,I'm having a problem where my username & pw aren't being remembered, in the personal settings, the option to remember is ticked, but it's not remembering.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Percy,How embarrassing, it seems to be working now ?!?!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by werd19:
hmm ok thats nice and wonderful.
do we even know for sure that it is gravity which pulls light into a black hole? because the mass of light is negligible it seems to me that the affect of a foce that acts upon mass would also be negligible.
i dont pretend to know all the laws that govern our existance. if you know a few more then me, plz share

---

Try this site, http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/detect.htmGravitic lensing has been observed, & therefore light being affected by gravity has been observed. It's workings are explained in the site above.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"But the modelled physics show one hole, with the sum of the mass of the two. Let's not let our imaginations run riot

​

Regarding compactness, the mass of black holes is currently thought to exist at a singularity. All you can have is a more massive singularity, so the mass takes up no more space anyway."
--Well contrasting your first statement and your second with the definition of a singularity, I think there is a bit of an inconsistency. Being that a singularity is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume as well as having space and time becoming infinitely distorted. I don't think adding two infinite quantities is going to have any effect. Either that or I am just playing with semantics.

​

---

You're not adding infinite quantities.Each hole has a mass that may be different to the other hole. What makes it a black hole is that it has a mass that has an escape velocity greater than light. As the effect due to gravity decreases by the inverse square law with distance, there comes a point where the escape velocity equals c. This forms a "surface" around the singularity. You move inside it, & you can't escape unless you can travel faster than light.That the mass is is concentrated into a singularity only means that volume (of the singularity, by definition) can't change, mass can.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
That NCSA webpage reveals that energy formerly within the black holes *does* escape, if I'm interpreting the escaping photon diagram properly, but it would be interesting to see how the event horizons actually change.--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]I believe that this is what is refered to as Hawkins Radiation where a pair of virtual particles forms at the event horizen and one "half" is inside the horizen and the other "half" is outside and speeds away so the virtual particles can not immediately self-destruct. The energy to do this without violating the laws of physics comes from a minute decrease in the angular velocity of the black hole.Sorry, I've been away a lot recently and now I am swimming through the piled paper. Time to dive in again.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz