63 people bested this!3 people are curious. |
Do you think this is the best? 
|
Get Great Stuff at 
(and other places we like)
Members that think Black Hole is the best!
Comments
science geeks unite!
i wonder whats inside the black hole….
A black hole contains the answers to everything inside it, but becasue we could not possibably comprehend such knowledge, it is forced to remove us from inside of it whenever we attempt to gain the knowledge it has. And thast's why time is made of circles cause clocks are round XD
42!
I wonder what would ahppen if you got sucked into one? Would yo die or does it like spit you out in a different place of time???
I guess we will never know.
I think matter becomes so dense that it just gets crushed into itself, something like that. That's how I want to go…
Yeah, so the other day I was on wikipedia looking up stuff about White Holes (supposedly the opposite of black holes), and came upon the article about black holes. IT IS CONFUSING! Basically the only thing that I understood about it was that some people have theorized that Black Holes and White Holes are linked as a space-time travel system. So much math….my head still hurts…mankind just needs to create something that allows them to explore black holes so they can get rid of the theoretical math so my brain won't have to work as hard ^_<. SO GET TO IT YOU SCIENTEST PEOPLE!!! and while you're at it, bring me somethin to get rid of the headache…
there are white holes?? I didn't know that
It's like the opposite side of black holes. I think they theorized that when a thing gets sucked into a black hole it goes to a white hole, and the rest I don't know…
hhmm thats pretty weird
That's not right. Scientists in southern parts of the US got jealous of all the black holes getting all the attention so they made up these 'white holes'... you know, equal rights, even in space…
haha I knew someone was gonna bring it up, I should have know it wold be you Kink.
The next thing you know scientists all across the world will just start making holes in the universe so they can name them after different races
I didn't say that white holes are real…I thought they're pretty ridiculous.
We only know black holes are out there because there are gaps in the cosmos, which I guess is why they're called holes even though they really aren't.
White holes I think would stick out like a pimple on your nose if they really exist.
nice analogy
whites holes would turn out black.
Blackholes suck anything towards itself because of the very big gravity. So big that even light gets sucked on to in (on not in). From there there is no escape. They are black because we cant see them. We only see light around it.
If white holes are the opposite then it would not suck but blow. all light and materials would get blown away what makes it impossible to see in space. therefor it would turn out black too. i thought hawkings said black and white holes are the same objects? but of this im not sure.
Wormholes now, thats really a thoughcracker
Did you know there's a Ferengi beverage known as the black hole?
haha I was wondering if anyone was going to bring p a Star Trek reference, and I am sad to say that I know what a ferengi is. :I
Have scientists proven that wormholes exsist?
Perhaps a white hole is a black hole seen from a different angle.
http://www.boomweb.nl/Into_The_Black_Hole.mp3
Bruce dickenson about a black hole, kinda heavy rock thing
Wormholes arn''t proven yet i think. Should the use of a wormhole we a real proof for it?
I wonder if everything is obliterated then once sucked into a black hole. Or if it's destroy when blown out of white hole? Probably. Just thoughts.
It is my understanding that once matter is 'sucked' into a black hole, it is obliterated. Nothing remains...
If Finrod was here, i'm sure he would correct me...
I guess I was thinking of a black hole in terms of very vast straw. As if, you suck water through a straw and it comes out into your mouth, still as water.
This is what a black hole does. the first and only shoot of a black hole in action.
It isnt a hole actually, just a giant mass with lot's of gravity. It looks like a hole because the light stays on the "thing" it can't escape
Cool! Hey I think I have a black hole in the bottom of my shower…
i dont want to know what that black hole eats, do i?
ahahaha! errrr… no comment.
Boomstam, the animation that you found is an animation. It's not evidence for the existence of black holes. It's also inaccurate in that the matter that disappears inside the event horizon would not look like water disappearing down a plughole (assuming that all Einstein's published ideas are right) in that there would be time-dilation effects - the matter would appear to slow down infinitely.
MastaKink, you are quite correct (but remember that all talk about black holes is theoretical) in that some scientists have postulated the existence of singularities with infinite density. This - I must say - is as useless an idea as I've come across in years.
We do not know that black holes are 'out there', any more than we 'know' that 99% of the Universe is 'dark matter.' Black holes are often said to be residing at the hearts of galaxies and I might as well say right now that I don't believe it.
In fact, I believe very little of what can be described as mainstream cosmology. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes. You certainly wouldn't find four quasars sitting in front of the nucleus of a dwarf galaxy like this one. Before anyone comes up with the phrase 'gravitational lens - it's four images of the same quasar' I don't believe a word of it. I've sat down with what General Relativity I can muster (not much) and I can't make any sense of NASA's statements. Light bending through all the gas and dust of a galactic nucleus? It would be like seeing a searchlight through a brick wall. Besides, if it were a lens effect, the image(s) would have to be next to the galaxy - you can't assemble this picture with the quasars in front of the nucleus without turning the light paths through corners.
So, there's either a NASA screw-up or a cosmic conspiracy?
Darth, I've been interested in this for years. The mainstream seems addicted to the idea of redshift (I think I'm going to have to give it its own page!) being caused solely by the Doppler effect.
This effect is actually very easy to demonstrate: when you hear an emergency vehisle such as an ambulance approach you and then go past you, the pitch of its siren drops as it goes past you. This is caused by the motion of the ambulance: the sound waves pile up in front of the moving ambulance as it moves towards you (making the pitch higher than when it is stationary) and get dragged further apart behind it (making the pitch lower).
A similar effect occurs with light. If you look very closely at any rainbow produced by a star, it is banded with what looks like a very complicated bar code (Fraunhöfer lines) caused by the different elements present. Hydrogen (the simplest and most abundant element) produces the most prominent sets. If the star is moving towards you, these lines will all shift as one towards the violet end of the rainbow (higher frequency - analogous to higher pitch with the sound of the ambulance). If the star is moving away from you, the lines all shift towards the red end of the rainbow (lower frequency - lower pitch).
However, at no time will the speed of the light seem to change. This is what is at the heart of Einstein's Special (not General as mentioned before) Theory of Relativity.
If you look at light from other galaxies, the lines are always - except for some very close neighbouring galaxies - red-shifted. This has been taken as irrefutable evidence that the Universe is expanding, which 'therefore' implies a moment of creation - small 'c' - in the past.
However - and this is at the crux or centre of my argument here - if there is at least one more cause for the redshift of these spectral lines, the whole 'Big Bang' edifice comes crumbling down logically as surely as Barad-Dûr did in The Lord of the Rings.
Anyone who has read this far, thank you. You may care to consider this, which is, unlike some of the drivel that I have read coming out of the mainstream, entirely evidence-based.
Like it says in my profile, I don't give opinions on stuff I don't know about. And if anyone thinks I'm a crank, try this.
I saved you the trouble, Finrod. (You may begin editing the redshift page at any time now.) ;)
One of the best theoretical features of a black hole is the time distortion. If you would "cross" the event horizon (actually you will die from gravity pull much earlier) the time required to collapse in a singularity is minimal. However, if you observe the same event from the "outside" it would take huge amounts of time, in fact it would look like a frozen image (...if you could actually see anything) . And both perceptions are equally true!
Sorry if it was too confusing... but it's wonderfully insane. Regards!