Cooking pan for condensed matter to be sent out again as vapor where it condenses again...
Funny theory i had. At least that way they could regenerate entire Galaxies around them, always consuming what is closest to them and blowing the energy to the outter edges of the galaxy. A constant inward spiral of rebirth and death.
If you have told one lie, that makes you a liar. If you have stolen one thing, that makes you a thief. JESUS said; if you look at a person with lust, you commit adultery in your heart! Ever used GOD's name in vain; then you are a blasphemer and can't enter GOD's kingdom! Revelation 21v8 says; "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire!" The bible says; No thief or adulterer will inherit GOD's kingdom! You broke GOD's laws; but JESUS paid your fine! Repent, trust the Savior!
pardon me but u obviously mistaken for someone he gives a fuck about a blackhole its not like a blackhole is going to get rid of earth its 15,000 light years away
@astrodude888 dude ur a dumb ass there can be millions of black holes in our galaxy, theyre just not as big as the one in the center of the galaxy. get ur facts right
if the world ends how r we going to live on the moon, the earths gravity causes the moon to rotate the earth and then when that gravity isn't there the suns gravity will take controll over the moon and we will burn. comment!
Black holes were created to explain those things that are unexplainable with the gravity driven theory of the universe.
Go to, thunderbolts(*)info for a new theory that has predicted all the new findings of the last bunch of spacecraft to reach comets and asteroids. Such as, comets are NOT dirty snowballs. They are solid objects that are being affected by the magnetic field of the sun as they approach.
Magnetic fields and electrical discharges are the real drivers of the Universe.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy and mis-information than this thread.
There are likely thousands of stellar black holes in the Milky Way, plus one super giant.
A black hole is a place where the density of matter has gotten so high that the matter cannot resist the pull of gravity. Note no statement about the mass required. They can vary from super giant to the mass of a single hadron. It is the latter that we are probably creating in the LHC.
Accretion disks happen in many scales and processes. The planets, meteors, asteroids, moons and trans-Neptunian objects are the remains of an accretion disk around our sun as it became a star. Normal stars would grow accretion disks had not the planets scavenge them and the light pressure not drive the rest off. Accretion disks form jets; the jets in the Eagle nebula pic are just such proto-star jets. Quasars are galactic scale jets; collapse supernovas create GRBs by the same process.
I dont understand when he says "if the sun was replaced by a back hole overnight we wouldn't notice?" The gravitational pull of a black hole if it was the same mass as the sun would be much, much greater and suck us all in!
@jmic0923: The only difference between a black hole and a heavy mass (like our sun) is that the black hole has been squeezed to such a high density that it cannot stop the gravitational collapse. If our sun were replaced with a black hole of the same mass:
1) The black hole and its event horizon would be too small to see. Sun gone, no more sunlight.
2) After a while, infalling stuff would create a small accretion disk very close in, which would radiate from radio thru x-rays.
... Anything sucked into the event horizon would be gone, but anything sucked into the sun to the same depth would be inside the sun, and so toasted crispy.
"maybe the arnt something to be afraid of".. you would say this if one was in our solar system heading towards us lol, though there is a blackhole heading towards our galaxy.
@jr2nd Err ... fuck dude .. you got no clue. We have a super-massive black hole right at the center of OUR galaxy already ... and black holes don`t move towards us, we do.
@jr2nd First of all, you said "a black hole heading towards our galaxy". I corrected that saying that black holes don`t move towards you, the galaxy those are a center of move alltogether and you could correctly say that we`re moving towards eachother [ as in, our and the other galaxy ]
Second. Since a black hole is at the center of our galaxy, we`re not moving towards ourselves, but towards the center [ if that would be the case, which is not, since it doesn`t have such a gravitational pull ].
@dsaasdf erm.. your just nit picking -.- but your aware not all black holes are in centers of galaxies? you aware of wondering black holes? a wondering black hole could move towards us, yes i KNOW the odd's are pretty high but it could happen one day.
@jr2nd I`m fully aware that black holes aren`t only at the center of galaxies and some are loners, but those aren`t wondering, but are static. So unless OUR galaxy itself moves towards one and rams into it, we`ll be safe. There is a infime possibility that we will end up as fuel for one, but that`s not gonna happen too soon and you won`t be alive anyway when it`ll happen. Moreover, the scientific advance will be so high that we`ll find a solution to that case when it will happen.
@dsaasdf Im sorry to say you dont know anything about blackholes (no offence), even googling "wandering black holes" i found ALOT of hits that they exist and that they probably are a few wondering through our galaxy
Quote:
ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE SOLAR NEIGHBORHOOD.
A wandering black hole was picked up and followed by a team of astronomers from the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the US National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the European Southern Observatory (ESO),
@jr2nd You have no clue about physics :) The "moving" black hole is actually stationary and we`re the ones moving, thus changing it`s position from our perspective.
Basic physics: one body is moving if it changes position in relation to a static point of your choice. Since our planet doesn`t moves away from ourselves, we consider it static and a reper point. Thus, we call the black holes wandering while we`re the ones actually wandering. Go back to school. You can`t learn everything on google
@dsaasdf well it seems im wrong, all astronomers are wrong and you are the brainest person on the planet... pshh.. you probably got everything you know from google or from kinergarden books and believe it gospel. If you want to think all black holes are stationary and dont move then i wont argue with your and leave you to your obviously stupidity.
@jr2nd You`re an idiot, so I`ll explain once more [ and for the last time ] in a different matter: like I`m explaining it to a child or an idiot [ which is the case ].
Black holes are stationary. The only thing that`s moving is us. So, using us as a reper point [ which implies that the reper is stationary and it is indeed stationary in relation to us, since the earth isn`t moving away below our feets ], the black holes are "moving", but the body itself in space-time is stationary.
@dsaasdf You actually have NO idea what you're talking about. Everything is in relative motion, INCLUDING black holes. Read a fucking book you asshole
@theblackcomp111 Never said they`re stationary. I said they are stationary in relation to a reper point [ which, is also in relative motion, but it`s used as a reper point because it it appears as stationary to the observer ]. Read some basic physics man .. 5-6th grade should be enough for a guy like you, who can atleast type properly and doesn`t have too much brain damage, to understand something so elementary like this. Now, gtfo and stop acting smart, because .. news flash: you`re not.
@dsaasdf black holes are never stationary. they always get pulled by other gavitational pulls, and just becuase it is way stronger doesnt mean it stays still. they can get pulled a little bit at a time. and they always started as something else that Was moving. so they are.
@dsaasdf: This is so inappropriate that I have to barge in. All motion is relative; therefore static only has a relative meaning, not absolute. Speaking of static black holes, like speaking of static stars, is just dumb. BHs don't "wander"; they follow orbits like all else.
Google (and the internet in general) is by far the vastest library ever constructed, and it is all at your finger tips. By all means, do use it. Go back to school for the learning discipline, if that is what you need.
@jr2nd: No, you're right; there are others. The first one discovered was Cygnus X-1, a black hole in the constellation Cygnus the swan, about 6,000 ltyrs away (1/4th the distance to the galactic center). It has 8.7 solar masses and its event horizon radius is about 26km (20 miles). It orbits a blue supergiant star at 1/5th Earth's distance from the sun, and is sucking materials off that star into its accretion disk.
... People keep worrying about one sneaking up on us. To be fatalistic, we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it; drilling and blasting is out of the question. Suppose some one took a huge shotgun and shot a whole galaxy toward us; the chances are extremely low anything would get close enough to affect us at all, out of billions of stars. Out of that galaxy, there may be a couple dozen stellar sized black holes and one enormous giant; their chances are far, far lower of affecting us. ...
... As for black holes in our own galaxy, like I said, there may be a couple dozen. They are almost all in fixed orbits just like we are, so can't approach any more than we can approach the monster at the center.
@EricFinnerty Umm... You said everything has a black hole in the center of it and you said Nazi's knew about black holes first. You for some reason also said the world was hollow; Stupid.
Our sun is a black hole and at the center of EVERYTHING is a black hole i.e. the center of Atoms, the nucleus...
But just another thing the mainstream leaves out, I mean if the Nazi's knew about the black holes and about how EArth is hollow and rings like a BELl when is quakes. RaisingEden com
right.. isnt a black hole just mass that becomes so tiny that it does not exist.. in this dimension? it is just a piece of mass that has collapsed in on itself in some way.. and has punched through space time boundaries.. I think haha. Therefore using gravity is the only way to manipulate the space time boundary that we are in. And since everything is ripped apart with these immensly powerful forces, no matter would remain intact. Only atoms can travel thru. damn i love weed
@macaws101: Quasars are associated with galaxies, so yeah, they probably have something to do with black holes at galactic center. Quasars are only seen at very large distances, billions of years in the past, so they have something to do with the evolution of galaxies and the universe, but we know no specifics.
EXemple (2) : To be the world of gta 4: I need my eyes, my hand s for the controlle , my ear to speak online. My character have been controlled by me.(my brain) I felt the other world not because ive not been teleported into. Simply because my brain can do.
EXemple: I play gran theft auto 4 on xbox 360 14 hours and i sleep 10 hours.
The world I live is Gta and when i sleep i dream about gta 4 cause im always on My character into gta 4 is controlled by me... can do lots of things... almost talkink lol... so why it would'nt be the same with us ?
we took billions yrs to evolve into something having counsciousness of an world.
I mean There's no Blackhole.we are in a blackhole... and that's why big bang never happened... that's why you don't exist ( like an perfect illusion) You should understand it . ( im just explaining the true things lol.)
Something I still don't understand. Black holes are massively...massive, right? So shouldn't they all be pulled toward the center of the universe by gravity?
So eventually, what we should see is either one huge black hole dead in the middle of the universe, or a convergence of black holes toward the center of the universe...or the clear deduction that space is indeed infinite.
there is no center of the universe everything just goes farther and farther apart but no middle. The "center" has no different radiation for heat than the edge of the universe.
it does not epand or contract.. if it would, all distances between different planets & suns and solar systems would rise.. partly that happen but not everywhere. There is a kind of movement, but not like a circle which is growing or shrinking, they are more special and kind of mysterious and hard to understand for the scientists. It's still not really clear, what exact movement there is, and why it happens. There are only very interesting theories about it.
The proposed expansion of the universe is observed as stars and galaxies moving away from each other, not from one central point. One theory of the Big Bang model is that the "explosion" as they call it, or, the Bang, happened everywhere, and at once. Not just from one central point. This is one possible way the universe could expand or contract w/o needing an absolute central reference point to start from or end up at.
The Big Bang theory explains that all matter was once concentrated and then rapidly expanded. This starting point of expansion could be considered the middle of the Universe.
@Jackspadeproductions ts like when you throw a piece of metal and you have a huge magnet behind it .. so the "throw power" for some seconds will be greater than the attraction of the magnet but at some point the magnet gains power over the "throw power"...
@iJul1609, since observations of the universe show that the galaxies are moving away not only from us, but also from each other. it means that the expansion of the universe is occuring everywhere. to say that the universe has a center would imply that everything is expanding away from that point, but that is not what is observed. the big bang isn't some huge explosion that occured. it's the explosion of space itself. and it is big in the sence that it occured everywhere.
@jhnthnh:I hadn't thought of that. I remember a particularly good physics teacher tried to explain that to us by drawing dots on a balloon, and then inflating it, so we could see all dots moving away from each other.
But still, shouldn't Newtonian gravity apply to black holes as well, regardless of space expansion? If I remember correctly (he was a good teacher, but that was a long time ago), the force of gravity = m1*m2/d^2, so if m1 or m2-->infinity, then gravity tends to infinity...
So either black holes do have a finite weight after all, or the universe is expanding at a speeds that also tends to infinity, or they do attract each other, though galaxies move away to each other due to space expansion...
@iJul1609: The problem is that there is no such thing as infinite mass. Also, mass as a force propagates with the speed of light, like everything else, so everything that is outside the 41 billion ltyr sphere I call the ancient sphere of influence might as well not exist for all we care. Third thing is that if there was infinite mass in one direction, it would be in all directions, and so balance out.
@jhnthnh well the big bang isn't the only theory , some people by mixing up quanten physic and relative theory discovered what they call "The Big Bounce" in this theory the univers will re-birth unendless .. so basically it expands and at some point it contracts itself and then expands again... and so on there are so many theories going on but we can never tell if their true or not.. or meaby in some billion years if we survive :D
While black holes are "massively massive" as you put it, the force of gravity is equal to the mass of the two gravitating objects (the two objects pulling towards each other, such as the sun and the earth for example) divided by the squared distance between those objects (if I'm remembering my first year physics right...sorry, but I'm a mere Chem major). In other words, as objects get farther apart, their gravity towards on another decreases exponentially (a helluva lot).
@AndrewDeLong: You're right. But black holes aren't anymore massively massive than anything else. Even the super ones at the center of galaxies have finite, though large, mass. Consider a stellar black hole; it started life as a massive star, which blew away most of it's mass at the time it supernova'ed. It's mass is only the mass that was left, so that mass will be in the lower star range of masses. Cygnus X-1 is 7.8 solar masses, inside a 26km event horizon.
"...not only has nobody ever found an event horizon; there is no laboratory evidence that such things exist. All reports of black holes being found are just wishful thinking - patently false ? unless you can provide the coordinates of a verified infinitely dense point-mass singularity and a verified event horizon. But there are of course, as you know, no such coordinates, because no black holes have ever been found." ~ Stephen Crothers
i think that stuff comes in disaperes i beleive that they are transported to the 6th and 7th demenshions, that much energy can make a time space rift is what i beleive.
Actually, he's referring to String Theory, which currently states that upwards of 11 dimensions may exist. It's based off from very theoretical mathematics, but nonetheless, he wasn't quoting or referencing any movie...
If matter rushes into a black hole then why are the stars in our galaxy appear to be moving away from the black hole? And could it be that the reason why the material around the black hole is so hot is because the black hole is radiating it's heat beyond the accretion disk? Then how can astronomers prove matter is being sucked into a BH if the BH is radiating the heat?
Did you know we are located 26,000 light years from the center of our galaxy? A coincidence that the precession of the equinoxes take 26,000 years also. Could it be that our solar system is riding an up & down wave? Starting at the top of the wave moving downward past the galactic equator, to the bottom of the wave then moving up past the galactic equator again to the top. And since it takes 26,000 years for the wave to get here it also takes 26,000 years to complete the up & down wave movement?
@BigNewGames: Yes, we are cycling up and down through the estimated center of the galactic disk with an oscillation period of 33 million years, while orbiting at a period of about 225 million years. We passed through the center of the disk about 3 million years ago, and are 75-100 ltyrs "above" it now. Precession is not the same thing as a galactic orbit; precession is a property of Earth by itself, tracing a wobbly circle across the heavens using the poles.
I know that is what is theorized, dah! But a few things always puzzled me. Why do black holes that have no apparent event horizon also spew jets from their magnetic poles? If the accretion disk is the reason then there should be no jets. Plus, how can the jets spray out so fast, nearly the speed of light, against the gravitational pull of the black holes themselves? Especially when the matter has already entered the BH's event horizon, point of no return? Can you answer that for me?
Lets all be sheeple without a clue and rely on elementary guesses by educated idiots. Which cannot even figure out why Saturn has younger outer rings than it's inner ones. NASA said it will take them a few years to figure that puzzle out because it does not fit into current theories. Lol, I was the one who predicted the outer rings to be younger before Cassini got there to confirm my hypothesis. I was right , NASA was wrong. Stop being such a follower and think for yourself, if you are able.
If the black hole did not radiate nothing like everyone claims then why are the stars moving away from it? If we were to reverse all the stars in our galaxy eventually every one would return back to the center from which they were born. NASA wrote that the BH's in the center of galaxies form long before the matter in the galaxy. What does that tell you? Black holes could not convert energy to matter in galaxies if they did not radiate anything. Research all the facts before you believe anything.
to anser your first question , our galaxy is kinda old and the super massive black hole in the milky way is now '' sleeping '' . after a certain point, the black hole becomes over loaded and cannot take material as it did in the past, it is always radiating all around. but still thats the reason why all stars appear to be moving away, the black hole is not as powerfull as it was
@BigNewGames: well, the big secret is: they aren't. All the stars in the MWG are in orbits around the super black hole at the center of the galaxy (not always the case, BTW). The black hole itself doesn't emit heat; it can't, any more than it can emit light. What is hot is the accretion disk, because all those particles in it have given up their potential & kinetic energy, converting it to EMR across the whole spectrum from x-rays to radio waves & hurling a fraction of the mass out the jets.
i've been wondering where does black holes takes us. to somewhere else in space just like how a warp portal? or is it just go in, get turned into pieces, and shot out again?
not sure. and i'm also wondering why so many people don't believe in studies of space like black holes, galaxies, universe, Gama Ray explosion and other planets. i mean...i even believe aliens exists since if there's humans on Earth, why can't there be aliens on other planets?
dont generalize please. many people dont believe in black holes, indark matter and in dark energy. Simply because these are t-h-e-o-r-e-t-i-c-a-l concepts, created by US (aka people) to explain some observed phenomena. Black holes and dark matter are NOT observable and can NOT be seeing like planets and galaxies or gama rays. So dont mix it up.
No, Black Holes are a prediction of General Relativity, as worked out by Karl Schwartzchild when fighting for the Central Powers in WW1. He didn't survive. His predictions are in line with observations.
@ActiveStorage: Ummmmm.... I think there is pretty high consensus in astrophysicists world wide about black holes. Dark matter and dark energy aren't defined concepts yet; they are essentially placeholders for observed phenomena, with only their currently known effects for descriptions. But I don't think they are American only; I know of no American bias in theoretical concepts existing now (except the planetary designation for Pluto, inasmuch as it was our astronomer and our dog dissed :)).
@puncheex i dont give a fuck about high consensus in astrophysics cause consensus kills new ideas. And any new idea is what allows humanity to progress in case u didnt notice. The consensus you are talking about only conserves, preserves and establishes outdated obsolete believes from the past that majority of non-thinking individuals love to identify themselves with.
as a consequence i dont give a fuck about all your ad-hock explanations you provide in order to protect your beloved theory
To answer your question, a black hole is not a portal to somewhere; it is actually an entire star that has been compressed so much that it is about the size of an electron. Since there is so much mass around such a tiny point, the gravity gets so strong that nothing, not even light can escape, if it gets too close. Anything that goes in gets ripped apart and compressed into the tiny electron sized core because of the gravity. Well, that's the simple explanation.
Active, I dont think you understand. If an object with mass passes the Schwarzschild radius (point of no return), it will be "sucked in". All objects affected by the hole's gravity are not necessarily sucked in, but are most certainly affected.
according to the theory it's only a matter of time. If whatever mass is affected by the hole's gravity it must ended up in the black hole. Sooner or later it will be sucked in. Otherwise it's not a black hole u talking about there.
That is of course nonsense, since the range of gravity is infinite. That means if there is a blackhole anywhere in the universe you are affected by it, RIGHT NOW) To closer you get the more likely it is that you end up in the black hole, if you loose enough angular moment. Once you pass the schwarzshield radius you're a gonner. If you enter the radius of a non-active super massive black hole then it will take quite some time until the tidal forces rip you apart.
agreed. that's why the whole concept dont make any sense at all. Because range of gravity is THOUGHT to be infinite (im not saying that it's not, im just pointing out that we dont know and theorizing about its range)
so everything is supposed to eventually end up in one ultra massive black hole. BUT now we all know that it's not gonna happen because of a new senseless theory of dark energy that happens to keep and move things apart. ridiculous
Actually the Schwarzschild radius you are mentioning, from mathematical point of view, is unreachable :) It would take infinite time to reach it, thats how the gravity curves the spacetime around such massive objects prisoned in so tiny space. Same for light velecity, it will never be achieved by material corpuscules because their mass would have to grown up to infinity. So no, black holes arent more dangerous for us than any other star in our universe
u are changing the subject. i said nothing about potential "danger" of black holes. I was saying that theories of black holes and dark matter and dark energy dont make much sense. reread my posts
"Schwarzschild radius ... is unreachable"
wtf are u saying here? do u actually understand what u just said? And then u jumped into a totaly different subject about speed of light. u have some logical problems with ur arguments
I perfectly understand what Im sayin but if you have problem with readin then Id recommend you to ask some1 to read it for you and give you ready interpretation of those words.
"Actually the Schwarzschild radius you are mentioning, from mathematical point of view, is unreachable :) It would take infinite time to reach it, thats how the gravity curves the spacetime around such massive objects prisoned in so tiny space."
if so can u explain to me what ur phrase about "reaching the radius" actually means? How can one "reach a radius"? I understand how one can reach a point in space. Not radius.
"And the light velecity issue was just the same kind example how mathematic and theory can exclude each other."
good. im glad u realize that mathematics can not be used to fully describe or explain a natural phenomena
"if so can u explain to me what ur phrase about "reaching the radius" actually means? How can one "reach a radius"? I understand how one can reach a point in space. Not radius."
That was an obvious mental leap. What I me meant by that is the sphere in space drafted by Schwarzschild radious is unreachable...
Actually whole technic issues and technology on earth (including LHC - most complicated designe created by human hand) are based on basic mathematic laws, and it works just fine. And so claimed natural phenomenas are no diffrence till some1 find way to describe them in mathematic language soooooooooooooo your remark is pointless. You fail at sarcasm dont use it too often ;) Ciao
@kanedziak: No. The singularity will take infinite time to reach, but the event horizon is easy. And I don't see how waiting in an infinite long line for the rest room is going to be nicer than getting spaghettified.
@ActiveStorage: Who is passing out this canard about gravity being infinite? The gravity *field* of a black hole approaches infinity as one nears the singularity (far inside the event horizon), but the force is always finite except right on the singularity. Of course, that is also true when the distance between two masses gets very small, approaching zero.
The theory about the ultimate black hole was scrubbed by the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
@MrIcicle: No - since there is no infinite mass, there is no infinite gravity. There is gravity high enough to not allow light to exit. Yes, you are affected by every black hole's gravity well, but the same is true for every star in the universe, too.
@ActiveStorage: No, not true. Anything that enters the Swartzchild radius, aka the event horizon, is lost. Things outside that can escape; the jets of the accretion disk are examples of stuff pulled out right at the event horizon's front doormat and thrown outwards to escape.
we shouldn't be afraid of black holes because they don't just necessarily swollow things but they through things out at a speed of light into the space and it's pretty to look at sometimes. This video is a awsome.
What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil.
Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole. It is 10^36 stronger than gravitational black hole.
CERNs specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN's LHC, the Earth will be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded by circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius of such mass is 0,009 meters.
Stop Tevatron and close the LHC. Throw out big-bangers from universities. Big Bang never was. The Universe is ever young.
Hubble constant is the mirror reflection of Plank constant. These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation on opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you can find on my web-site. Big-bangers want to kill my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the particle of God, but thus, they lead us into the magnetic trap of Devil.
Why you have to see something to prove it's existence? Have you ever seen your brain? But you are sure you have one right? Sorry no intention to offend you or call you stupid. Just an example. Besides how can you see a black hole when light never escapes it. I am not arguing whether black holes are real or not just saying that it is not necessary to see something to prove its existence.
@mit871chell No it is not. It is what happens according to theory but that is surely not an evidence. We cannot witness anything that happens beyond the event horizon. That is why it is called event horizon. Any event beyond that horizon has no effect on us. So how can it be an evidence? Evidence of Black hole is it's gravitational effect on the larger objects around it and the swirl of gas outside of event horizon that glows cause of immense heat from friction.
@justawordaway: There are only three pieces of data we can know about any black hole: it's location and velocity, its mass and its spin (angular velocity, to be exact). Together they yield angular momentum and size of the event horizon.
@mit871chell: Observationally, a black hole's signature is x-rays radiating from a point too small or too dark to be a star. That was how Cygnus X-1 was determined to be a black hole. Brown and red stars are too unenergetic to radiate x-rays. This method, of course, will miss any black hole that doesn't have an accretion disk. No black hole is close enough to Earth to detect gravitationally.
HerbDangerous, you should really keep up on recent events. Ever since the launch of the Hubble telescope we have captured photographic evidence of thousands of black holes within our own galaxy. We may not be able to see black holes themselves, however we can see the gas and matter that orbits them. Also, if you do not believe there is proof of black holes, look towards our own galaxy. Can you think of anything else to explain it's disc like shape aside from a supermassive black hole?
@dylannater2: Ummm, well, I don't think you can blame the disk on the black hole. In fact, no one knows what holds galaxies together against centrifugal force; we call it dark matter, but we don't know what that is. The galaxy is like a BH's accretion disk, though - it flattens because of common rotation around a center, and it's a true democracy - the majority rule about where the center plane is.
Obviously, it is not a hole. It is certainly a super heavy object, but very little, if any matter ever "falls in". The matter of the surrounding galaxy, comes out of the object at its poles, it is then in most cases, reacquired by the object, due to its terrific gravity. Therefore, it is NOT an accretion disc.
Black holes do not exist, any more than worm holes exist. There's no such thing.
These super heavy objects are far more complex than has been suggested here.
@950horsepower: Oh, I like your confidence. If little matter ever falls in, how then do super massive black holes get that way? It can't all be hormones.I have to disagree about the jets; they pretty much come out at a high fraction of the speed of light, way beyond the galaxy's escape velocity; I've never before heard anyone say the matter eventually re-entered the galaxy it was shed from.
Cite me a cite on that "far more complex"; I'm always in a learning mode.
@puncheex lol, thank you for your comment. Of course, I am just an amateur, so they can always dis me cause i didn't say it right. The real scientists don't, because they are like you, always learning. My little confidence comes from many years of study, arriving at an hypothesis that seems to work.
If I am right, they will soon give up this notion of collapsing stars, and recognize that the galaxy grows from the center, the same as do stars. Anyway, thanks again.
HAPPY HAPPY!!!!!! lemme get this straight you want me to be happy a BLACK HOLE exsists A BIG SUCKIN MONSTER OF DEATH Look anything that can kill any form of life is considered a HUGE threat to me
So is the sun then. The sun has more of a chance of destroying all life on the planet (100%) than A black hole or Gamma Ray Burst(less than or at 1%). So yeah, again, You probably wouldn't be here without the sucky monster. ;D
@beneehall: Well, everything eventually does something. The objects at synchronous orbit will be there a long, long time. Those we are sending out to L5 (like the James Webb telescope) aren't really in earth orbit any longer; they're actually in solar orbit. They may outlast the Earth. The ones in the Sun/Moon L2/3 (Trojan) points will be there when the final trump is played; there are asteroids that have been there since the very beginning of Earth.
Cooking pan for condensed matter to be sent out again as vapor where it condenses again...
Funny theory i had. At least that way they could regenerate entire Galaxies around them, always consuming what is closest to them and blowing the energy to the outter edges of the galaxy. A constant inward spiral of rebirth and death.
Maxuskrachus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you have told one lie, that makes you a liar. If you have stolen one thing, that makes you a thief. JESUS said; if you look at a person with lust, you commit adultery in your heart! Ever used GOD's name in vain; then you are a blasphemer and can't enter GOD's kingdom! Revelation 21v8 says; "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire!" The bible says; No thief or adulterer will inherit GOD's kingdom! You broke GOD's laws; but JESUS paid your fine! Repent, trust the Savior!
EXALTEDDIRT 5 months ago
im a black hole
lovestospooge646 5 months ago
@lovestospooge646 YOUR MOTHERS ASS IS A BLACK HOLE IT EAT MY COCK HAAHAHAHAHAHAAAH
bulgarian1989 4 months ago
ALRIGHT WHO DIVIDED BY ZERO?!
lilawesomejason4 5 months ago
Comment removed
bugisami 11 months ago
pardon me but u obviously mistaken for someone he gives a fuck about a blackhole its not like a blackhole is going to get rid of earth its 15,000 light years away
astrodude888 1 year ago
@astrodude888 dude ur a dumb ass there can be millions of black holes in our galaxy, theyre just not as big as the one in the center of the galaxy. get ur facts right
frank12364 1 year ago
@frank12364 dude shut your stupid ass the fuck up. dipshit.
TheLovesoul1 8 months ago
if the world ends how r we going to live on the moon, the earths gravity causes the moon to rotate the earth and then when that gravity isn't there the suns gravity will take controll over the moon and we will burn. comment!
ab12980 1 year ago
@ab12980 first of all we cant live on the moon okay, if earth is gone then is impossible
frank12364 1 year ago
@frank12364 Yes, we can live on the moon...under the soil, or in artificial biospheres, not on the surface without protection, but we can.
Helge129 7 months ago
Black holes were created to explain those things that are unexplainable with the gravity driven theory of the universe.
Go to, thunderbolts(*)info for a new theory that has predicted all the new findings of the last bunch of spacecraft to reach comets and asteroids. Such as, comets are NOT dirty snowballs. They are solid objects that are being affected by the magnetic field of the sun as they approach.
Magnetic fields and electrical discharges are the real drivers of the Universe.
beneehall 1 year ago
@beneehall That's only at a sub atomic level. =P
mit871chell 1 year ago
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy and mis-information than this thread.
There are likely thousands of stellar black holes in the Milky Way, plus one super giant.
A black hole is a place where the density of matter has gotten so high that the matter cannot resist the pull of gravity. Note no statement about the mass required. They can vary from super giant to the mass of a single hadron. It is the latter that we are probably creating in the LHC.
puncheex 1 year ago
Accretion disks happen in many scales and processes. The planets, meteors, asteroids, moons and trans-Neptunian objects are the remains of an accretion disk around our sun as it became a star. Normal stars would grow accretion disks had not the planets scavenge them and the light pressure not drive the rest off. Accretion disks form jets; the jets in the Eagle nebula pic are just such proto-star jets. Quasars are galactic scale jets; collapse supernovas create GRBs by the same process.
puncheex 1 year ago
I dont understand when he says "if the sun was replaced by a back hole overnight we wouldn't notice?" The gravitational pull of a black hole if it was the same mass as the sun would be much, much greater and suck us all in!
jmic0923 1 year ago
@jmic0923 it makes perfect sense. it has the same gravitational force. it as the SAME mass so exerts the same gravity.
Sforschondetta 1 year ago
@jmic0923: The only difference between a black hole and a heavy mass (like our sun) is that the black hole has been squeezed to such a high density that it cannot stop the gravitational collapse. If our sun were replaced with a black hole of the same mass:
1) The black hole and its event horizon would be too small to see. Sun gone, no more sunlight.
2) After a while, infalling stuff would create a small accretion disk very close in, which would radiate from radio thru x-rays.
That's all.
puncheex 1 year ago
... Anything sucked into the event horizon would be gone, but anything sucked into the sun to the same depth would be inside the sun, and so toasted crispy.
(Part 2 of multi-part answer.)
puncheex 1 year ago
thats retarded. Doesn't make sense at all.
sirajrizvi 1 year ago
@sirajrizvi: Sorry. What do you seem to be having retarded problems with?
puncheex 1 year ago
"maybe the arnt something to be afraid of".. you would say this if one was in our solar system heading towards us lol, though there is a blackhole heading towards our galaxy.
jr2nd 1 year ago
@jr2nd Err ... fuck dude .. you got no clue. We have a super-massive black hole right at the center of OUR galaxy already ... and black holes don`t move towards us, we do.
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf Err... dude i am aware we have a "supposedly" big black hole in the center of the galaxy, we move towards ourselfs?
jr2nd 1 year ago
@jr2nd First of all, you said "a black hole heading towards our galaxy". I corrected that saying that black holes don`t move towards you, the galaxy those are a center of move alltogether and you could correctly say that we`re moving towards eachother [ as in, our and the other galaxy ]
Second. Since a black hole is at the center of our galaxy, we`re not moving towards ourselves, but towards the center [ if that would be the case, which is not, since it doesn`t have such a gravitational pull ].
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf erm.. your just nit picking -.- but your aware not all black holes are in centers of galaxies? you aware of wondering black holes? a wondering black hole could move towards us, yes i KNOW the odd's are pretty high but it could happen one day.
jr2nd 1 year ago
@jr2nd I`m fully aware that black holes aren`t only at the center of galaxies and some are loners, but those aren`t wondering, but are static. So unless OUR galaxy itself moves towards one and rams into it, we`ll be safe. There is a infime possibility that we will end up as fuel for one, but that`s not gonna happen too soon and you won`t be alive anyway when it`ll happen. Moreover, the scientific advance will be so high that we`ll find a solution to that case when it will happen.
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf Im sorry to say you dont know anything about blackholes (no offence), even googling "wandering black holes" i found ALOT of hits that they exist and that they probably are a few wondering through our galaxy
Quote:
ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE SOLAR NEIGHBORHOOD.
A wandering black hole was picked up and followed by a team of astronomers from the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), the US National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the European Southern Observatory (ESO),
jr2nd 1 year ago
@jr2nd You have no clue about physics :) The "moving" black hole is actually stationary and we`re the ones moving, thus changing it`s position from our perspective.
Basic physics: one body is moving if it changes position in relation to a static point of your choice. Since our planet doesn`t moves away from ourselves, we consider it static and a reper point. Thus, we call the black holes wandering while we`re the ones actually wandering. Go back to school. You can`t learn everything on google
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf well it seems im wrong, all astronomers are wrong and you are the brainest person on the planet... pshh.. you probably got everything you know from google or from kinergarden books and believe it gospel. If you want to think all black holes are stationary and dont move then i wont argue with your and leave you to your obviously stupidity.
jr2nd 1 year ago
@jr2nd You`re an idiot, so I`ll explain once more [ and for the last time ] in a different matter: like I`m explaining it to a child or an idiot [ which is the case ].
Black holes are stationary. The only thing that`s moving is us. So, using us as a reper point [ which implies that the reper is stationary and it is indeed stationary in relation to us, since the earth isn`t moving away below our feets ], the black holes are "moving", but the body itself in space-time is stationary.
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf You actually have NO idea what you're talking about. Everything is in relative motion, INCLUDING black holes. Read a fucking book you asshole
theblackcomp111 1 year ago
@theblackcomp111 Never said they`re stationary. I said they are stationary in relation to a reper point [ which, is also in relative motion, but it`s used as a reper point because it it appears as stationary to the observer ]. Read some basic physics man .. 5-6th grade should be enough for a guy like you, who can atleast type properly and doesn`t have too much brain damage, to understand something so elementary like this. Now, gtfo and stop acting smart, because .. news flash: you`re not.
dsaasdf 1 year ago
@dsaasdf black holes are never stationary. they always get pulled by other gavitational pulls, and just becuase it is way stronger doesnt mean it stays still. they can get pulled a little bit at a time. and they always started as something else that Was moving. so they are.
FlameShado 1 year ago
@dsaasdf Black hole.. stationary?? With respect to what????
supergiuovane 1 year ago
@dsaasdf: This is so inappropriate that I have to barge in. All motion is relative; therefore static only has a relative meaning, not absolute. Speaking of static black holes, like speaking of static stars, is just dumb. BHs don't "wander"; they follow orbits like all else.
Google (and the internet in general) is by far the vastest library ever constructed, and it is all at your finger tips. By all means, do use it. Go back to school for the learning discipline, if that is what you need.
puncheex 1 year ago
@jr2nd: No, you're right; there are others. The first one discovered was Cygnus X-1, a black hole in the constellation Cygnus the swan, about 6,000 ltyrs away (1/4th the distance to the galactic center). It has 8.7 solar masses and its event horizon radius is about 26km (20 miles). It orbits a blue supergiant star at 1/5th Earth's distance from the sun, and is sucking materials off that star into its accretion disk.
puncheex 1 year ago
... People keep worrying about one sneaking up on us. To be fatalistic, we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it; drilling and blasting is out of the question. Suppose some one took a huge shotgun and shot a whole galaxy toward us; the chances are extremely low anything would get close enough to affect us at all, out of billions of stars. Out of that galaxy, there may be a couple dozen stellar sized black holes and one enormous giant; their chances are far, far lower of affecting us. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... As for black holes in our own galaxy, like I said, there may be a couple dozen. They are almost all in fixed orbits just like we are, so can't approach any more than we can approach the monster at the center.
(Part 3 of multi-part posting.)
puncheex 1 year ago
@jr2nd: Yes, but you would be equally appalled by a star of the same mass coming toward us. As far as we are concerned, it would be the same thing.
puncheex 1 year ago
@EricFinnerty Umm... You said everything has a black hole in the center of it and you said Nazi's knew about black holes first. You for some reason also said the world was hollow; Stupid.
SomeNightElf 1 year ago
wow.. very intersting
jaymzaah 1 year ago
Truth:
Our sun is a black hole and at the center of EVERYTHING is a black hole i.e. the center of Atoms, the nucleus...
But just another thing the mainstream leaves out, I mean if the Nazi's knew about the black holes and about how EArth is hollow and rings like a BELl when is quakes. RaisingEden com
EricFinnerty 1 year ago
@EricFinnerty Are you retarded?
SomeNightElf 1 year ago
@SomeNightElf, you expect me to join you with name calling, whos retarded?
EricFinnerty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EricFinnerty what the fuck are you talking about?
MrNarutovsbleach 1 year ago
racist hate on youtube
aaronlovestruth 1 year ago
right.. isnt a black hole just mass that becomes so tiny that it does not exist.. in this dimension? it is just a piece of mass that has collapsed in on itself in some way.. and has punched through space time boundaries.. I think haha. Therefore using gravity is the only way to manipulate the space time boundary that we are in. And since everything is ripped apart with these immensly powerful forces, no matter would remain intact. Only atoms can travel thru. damn i love weed
markdb666 1 year ago
when a black hole "spits" stuff out, it is sometimes known as a quasar. if big enough, they will eventually turn into galaxies.
macaws101 1 year ago
@macaws101: Quasars are associated with galaxies, so yeah, they probably have something to do with black holes at galactic center. Quasars are only seen at very large distances, billions of years in the past, so they have something to do with the evolution of galaxies and the universe, but we know no specifics.
puncheex 1 year ago
EXemple (2) : To be the world of gta 4: I need my eyes, my hand s for the controlle , my ear to speak online. My character have been controlled by me.(my brain) I felt the other world not because ive not been teleported into. Simply because my brain can do.
belley669 1 year ago
EXemple: I play gran theft auto 4 on xbox 360 14 hours and i sleep 10 hours.
The world I live is Gta and when i sleep i dream about gta 4 cause im always on My character into gta 4 is controlled by me... can do lots of things... almost talkink lol... so why it would'nt be the same with us ?
belley669 1 year ago
The truth = You are not into a world but your brain give you feeling to be into an world.
(Yourself world your brain give to you... and then the Universe Is nothing.)
If i was going to cut all your nerve of an guy, all he got left its himself in his brain . ( black space with his mind )
belley669 1 year ago
we took billions yrs to evolve into something having counsciousness of an world.
I mean There's no Blackhole.we are in a blackhole... and that's why big bang never happened... that's why you don't exist ( like an perfect illusion) You should understand it . ( im just explaining the true things lol.)
belley669 1 year ago
Thank you:)
BeautyofmyEarth 2 years ago
if theyve never been proven right they cant be proven wrong and so they can still exist :D
KittenIgnition 2 years ago
Something I still don't understand. Black holes are massively...massive, right? So shouldn't they all be pulled toward the center of the universe by gravity?
So eventually, what we should see is either one huge black hole dead in the middle of the universe, or a convergence of black holes toward the center of the universe...or the clear deduction that space is indeed infinite.
no?
iJul1609 2 years ago
there is no center of the universe everything just goes farther and farther apart but no middle. The "center" has no different radiation for heat than the edge of the universe.
MrPipitone 2 years ago
"there is no middle of the universe"--> OK, that's a conclusion.
So how could the universe expand or contract?
iJul1609 2 years ago 2
@iJul1609
it does not epand or contract.. if it would, all distances between different planets & suns and solar systems would rise.. partly that happen but not everywhere. There is a kind of movement, but not like a circle which is growing or shrinking, they are more special and kind of mysterious and hard to understand for the scientists. It's still not really clear, what exact movement there is, and why it happens. There are only very interesting theories about it.
CitoBMS 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iJul1609
"So how could the universe expand or contract?"
The proposed expansion of the universe is observed as stars and galaxies moving away from each other, not from one central point. One theory of the Big Bang model is that the "explosion" as they call it, or, the Bang, happened everywhere, and at once. Not just from one central point. This is one possible way the universe could expand or contract w/o needing an absolute central reference point to start from or end up at.
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@iJul1609
The Big Bang theory explains that all matter was once concentrated and then rapidly expanded. This starting point of expansion could be considered the middle of the Universe.
rdyramos 1 year ago
I think there is one massive black holein the center of the universe that is making all the others slowly come back maybe..
Jackspadeproductions 2 years ago
@Jackspadeproductions ts like when you throw a piece of metal and you have a huge magnet behind it .. so the "throw power" for some seconds will be greater than the attraction of the magnet but at some point the magnet gains power over the "throw power"...
BelloItaliano2009 1 year ago
That's a good point...
cha0tickid 2 years ago
@iJul1609, since observations of the universe show that the galaxies are moving away not only from us, but also from each other. it means that the expansion of the universe is occuring everywhere. to say that the universe has a center would imply that everything is expanding away from that point, but that is not what is observed. the big bang isn't some huge explosion that occured. it's the explosion of space itself. and it is big in the sence that it occured everywhere.
jhnthnh 2 years ago
@jhnthnh:I hadn't thought of that. I remember a particularly good physics teacher tried to explain that to us by drawing dots on a balloon, and then inflating it, so we could see all dots moving away from each other.
But still, shouldn't Newtonian gravity apply to black holes as well, regardless of space expansion? If I remember correctly (he was a good teacher, but that was a long time ago), the force of gravity = m1*m2/d^2, so if m1 or m2-->infinity, then gravity tends to infinity...
iJul1609 2 years ago
So either black holes do have a finite weight after all, or the universe is expanding at a speeds that also tends to infinity, or they do attract each other, though galaxies move away to each other due to space expansion...
No? oO
iJul1609 2 years ago
@iJul1609: The problem is that there is no such thing as infinite mass. Also, mass as a force propagates with the speed of light, like everything else, so everything that is outside the 41 billion ltyr sphere I call the ancient sphere of influence might as well not exist for all we care. Third thing is that if there was infinite mass in one direction, it would be in all directions, and so balance out.
puncheex 1 year ago
@jhnthnh well the big bang isn't the only theory , some people by mixing up quanten physic and relative theory discovered what they call "The Big Bounce" in this theory the univers will re-birth unendless .. so basically it expands and at some point it contracts itself and then expands again... and so on there are so many theories going on but we can never tell if their true or not.. or meaby in some billion years if we survive :D
BelloItaliano2009 1 year ago
@iJul1609
While black holes are "massively massive" as you put it, the force of gravity is equal to the mass of the two gravitating objects (the two objects pulling towards each other, such as the sun and the earth for example) divided by the squared distance between those objects (if I'm remembering my first year physics right...sorry, but I'm a mere Chem major). In other words, as objects get farther apart, their gravity towards on another decreases exponentially (a helluva lot).
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
@AndrewDeLong: You're right. But black holes aren't anymore massively massive than anything else. Even the super ones at the center of galaxies have finite, though large, mass. Consider a stellar black hole; it started life as a massive star, which blew away most of it's mass at the time it supernova'ed. It's mass is only the mass that was left, so that mass will be in the lower star range of masses. Cygnus X-1 is 7.8 solar masses, inside a 26km event horizon.
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"...not only has nobody ever found an event horizon; there is no laboratory evidence that such things exist. All reports of black holes being found are just wishful thinking - patently false ? unless you can provide the coordinates of a verified infinitely dense point-mass singularity and a verified event horizon. But there are of course, as you know, no such coordinates, because no black holes have ever been found." ~ Stephen Crothers
SkunkHunt 2 years ago
i think that stuff comes in disaperes i beleive that they are transported to the 6th and 7th demenshions, that much energy can make a time space rift is what i beleive.
ravenpie52 2 years ago
lol
creative36 2 years ago
Time is an illusion.
lleksikon 2 years ago
@ravenpie52 haha do you even know what youre talking about?
6th and 7th dimension? lol youre crazy
everything that goes into a black hole i belive is being compressed to something smaller than dust probably
but you watch too many movies lol xD
VolcomStone128 2 years ago
@VolcomStone128 Less than dust. More like matter itself.
FatalFist 2 years ago
@VolcomStone128
Actually, he's referring to String Theory, which currently states that upwards of 11 dimensions may exist. It's based off from very theoretical mathematics, but nonetheless, he wasn't quoting or referencing any movie...
AndrewDeLong 1 year ago
yo if u get suck into a black hole u die its kinda like a well but really small and posion snakes biking u
portugal4life89 2 years ago
w0w dumbass XD
micah9021090210 2 years ago
wow fuck u bitch i know more shit than u
portugal4life89 2 years ago
Get high on this
OLIVORTEX on myspace
oliverecords 2 years ago
If matter rushes into a black hole then why are the stars in our galaxy appear to be moving away from the black hole? And could it be that the reason why the material around the black hole is so hot is because the black hole is radiating it's heat beyond the accretion disk? Then how can astronomers prove matter is being sucked into a BH if the BH is radiating the heat?
BigNewGames 2 years ago
Did you know we are located 26,000 light years from the center of our galaxy? A coincidence that the precession of the equinoxes take 26,000 years also. Could it be that our solar system is riding an up & down wave? Starting at the top of the wave moving downward past the galactic equator, to the bottom of the wave then moving up past the galactic equator again to the top. And since it takes 26,000 years for the wave to get here it also takes 26,000 years to complete the up & down wave movement?
BigNewGames 2 years ago
@BigNewGames: Yes, we are cycling up and down through the estimated center of the galactic disk with an oscillation period of 33 million years, while orbiting at a period of about 225 million years. We passed through the center of the disk about 3 million years ago, and are 75-100 ltyrs "above" it now. Precession is not the same thing as a galactic orbit; precession is a property of Earth by itself, tracing a wobbly circle across the heavens using the poles.
puncheex 1 year ago
TRy watching again. The black hole radiates nothing, and it doesn't form jets. It's the acretion disc that does all that.
gamesbok 2 years ago
I know that is what is theorized, dah! But a few things always puzzled me. Why do black holes that have no apparent event horizon also spew jets from their magnetic poles? If the accretion disk is the reason then there should be no jets. Plus, how can the jets spray out so fast, nearly the speed of light, against the gravitational pull of the black holes themselves? Especially when the matter has already entered the BH's event horizon, point of no return? Can you answer that for me?
BigNewGames 2 years ago
Lets all be sheeple without a clue and rely on elementary guesses by educated idiots. Which cannot even figure out why Saturn has younger outer rings than it's inner ones. NASA said it will take them a few years to figure that puzzle out because it does not fit into current theories. Lol, I was the one who predicted the outer rings to be younger before Cassini got there to confirm my hypothesis. I was right , NASA was wrong. Stop being such a follower and think for yourself, if you are able.
BigNewGames 2 years ago
If the black hole did not radiate nothing like everyone claims then why are the stars moving away from it? If we were to reverse all the stars in our galaxy eventually every one would return back to the center from which they were born. NASA wrote that the BH's in the center of galaxies form long before the matter in the galaxy. What does that tell you? Black holes could not convert energy to matter in galaxies if they did not radiate anything. Research all the facts before you believe anything.
BigNewGames 2 years ago
to anser your first question , our galaxy is kinda old and the super massive black hole in the milky way is now '' sleeping '' . after a certain point, the black hole becomes over loaded and cannot take material as it did in the past, it is always radiating all around. but still thats the reason why all stars appear to be moving away, the black hole is not as powerfull as it was
alexxx1324 2 years ago
@BigNewGames: well, the big secret is: they aren't. All the stars in the MWG are in orbits around the super black hole at the center of the galaxy (not always the case, BTW). The black hole itself doesn't emit heat; it can't, any more than it can emit light. What is hot is the accretion disk, because all those particles in it have given up their potential & kinetic energy, converting it to EMR across the whole spectrum from x-rays to radio waves & hurling a fraction of the mass out the jets.
puncheex 1 year ago
So.. If we are sucked by a black hole, we will shrink to death?
OyePaye 2 years ago
or teleport to another space xD
misheel123 2 years ago
@OyePaye: No - you'll get spaghettified. Look it up in wikipedia.
puncheex 1 year ago
gravity has electromagnetic nature :)
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be honest
If u really like someone right now,
or miss them right at this moment,
or can't get them out of your head,
Then copy and paste this on 10 vvids within 5 minutes,
And whoever you are missing,
Will surprise you tomorow.
AnnoyingGirlWTalent 2 years ago
kanedziak is a top wasteman!!!!
kapz212 2 years ago
cosmic farts
cusanusnicolas 2 years ago
i've been wondering where does black holes takes us. to somewhere else in space just like how a warp portal? or is it just go in, get turned into pieces, and shot out again?
seezhijie 2 years ago
or maybe suck anything near it, then being blown in the black hole
nowherename 2 years ago
not sure. and i'm also wondering why so many people don't believe in studies of space like black holes, galaxies, universe, Gama Ray explosion and other planets. i mean...i even believe aliens exists since if there's humans on Earth, why can't there be aliens on other planets?
seezhijie 2 years ago
dont generalize please. many people dont believe in black holes, indark matter and in dark energy. Simply because these are t-h-e-o-r-e-t-i-c-a-l concepts, created by US (aka people) to explain some observed phenomena. Black holes and dark matter are NOT observable and can NOT be seeing like planets and galaxies or gama rays. So dont mix it up.
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
No, Black Holes are a prediction of General Relativity, as worked out by Karl Schwartzchild when fighting for the Central Powers in WW1. He didn't survive. His predictions are in line with observations.
gamesbok 2 years ago
@ActiveStorage: Ummmmm.... I think there is pretty high consensus in astrophysicists world wide about black holes. Dark matter and dark energy aren't defined concepts yet; they are essentially placeholders for observed phenomena, with only their currently known effects for descriptions. But I don't think they are American only; I know of no American bias in theoretical concepts existing now (except the planetary designation for Pluto, inasmuch as it was our astronomer and our dog dissed :)).
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex i dont give a fuck about high consensus in astrophysics cause consensus kills new ideas. And any new idea is what allows humanity to progress in case u didnt notice. The consensus you are talking about only conserves, preserves and establishes outdated obsolete believes from the past that majority of non-thinking individuals love to identify themselves with.
as a consequence i dont give a fuck about all your ad-hock explanations you provide in order to protect your beloved theory
ActiveStorage 1 year ago
@ActiveStorage: Oh, well, pardon me all to hell, then. You obviously don't have a clue, and don't want one.
puncheex 1 year ago
all mass absorbed is converted to energy
AnInterloper 2 years ago
If that was true a black hole wouldn't have any mass.
gamesbok 2 years ago
@AnInterloper: No, not necessarily; there is no requirement that that happen.
puncheex 1 year ago
To answer your question, a black hole is not a portal to somewhere; it is actually an entire star that has been compressed so much that it is about the size of an electron. Since there is so much mass around such a tiny point, the gravity gets so strong that nothing, not even light can escape, if it gets too close. Anything that goes in gets ripped apart and compressed into the tiny electron sized core because of the gravity. Well, that's the simple explanation.
VelocityTino 2 years ago
@seezhijie: We don't know. If you try it, be sure to write back and tell us so we know.
puncheex 1 year ago
wow. these people are so ludicrous
they say black holes doesnt take stuff in
ActiveStorage 3 years ago
Active, I dont think you understand. If an object with mass passes the Schwarzschild radius (point of no return), it will be "sucked in". All objects affected by the hole's gravity are not necessarily sucked in, but are most certainly affected.
AnInterloper 2 years ago
according to the theory it's only a matter of time. If whatever mass is affected by the hole's gravity it must ended up in the black hole. Sooner or later it will be sucked in. Otherwise it's not a black hole u talking about there.
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
That is of course nonsense, since the range of gravity is infinite. That means if there is a blackhole anywhere in the universe you are affected by it, RIGHT NOW) To closer you get the more likely it is that you end up in the black hole, if you loose enough angular moment. Once you pass the schwarzshield radius you're a gonner. If you enter the radius of a non-active super massive black hole then it will take quite some time until the tidal forces rip you apart.
MrIcicle 2 years ago
agreed. that's why the whole concept dont make any sense at all. Because range of gravity is THOUGHT to be infinite (im not saying that it's not, im just pointing out that we dont know and theorizing about its range)
so everything is supposed to eventually end up in one ultra massive black hole. BUT now we all know that it's not gonna happen because of a new senseless theory of dark energy that happens to keep and move things apart. ridiculous
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
Actually the Schwarzschild radius you are mentioning, from mathematical point of view, is unreachable :) It would take infinite time to reach it, thats how the gravity curves the spacetime around such massive objects prisoned in so tiny space. Same for light velecity, it will never be achieved by material corpuscules because their mass would have to grown up to infinity. So no, black holes arent more dangerous for us than any other star in our universe
kanedziak 2 years ago
u are changing the subject. i said nothing about potential "danger" of black holes. I was saying that theories of black holes and dark matter and dark energy dont make much sense. reread my posts
"Schwarzschild radius ... is unreachable"
wtf are u saying here? do u actually understand what u just said? And then u jumped into a totaly different subject about speed of light. u have some logical problems with ur arguments
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
I perfectly understand what Im sayin but if you have problem with readin then Id recommend you to ask some1 to read it for you and give you ready interpretation of those words.
"Actually the Schwarzschild radius you are mentioning, from mathematical point of view, is unreachable :) It would take infinite time to reach it, thats how the gravity curves the spacetime around such massive objects prisoned in so tiny space."
kanedziak 2 years ago
Thats what I said, it`s really easy to be understand but.... maybe not for all :)
And the light velecity issue was just the same kind example how mathematic and theory can exclude each other.
Cheers and read more
kanedziak 2 years ago
if so can u explain to me what ur phrase about "reaching the radius" actually means? How can one "reach a radius"? I understand how one can reach a point in space. Not radius.
"And the light velecity issue was just the same kind example how mathematic and theory can exclude each other."
good. im glad u realize that mathematics can not be used to fully describe or explain a natural phenomena
ActiveStorage 2 years ago
"if so can u explain to me what ur phrase about "reaching the radius" actually means? How can one "reach a radius"? I understand how one can reach a point in space. Not radius."
That was an obvious mental leap. What I me meant by that is the sphere in space drafted by Schwarzschild radious is unreachable...
I hope it lightened everything up now :D
kanedziak 2 years ago
@kanedziak: Jesus (and I use that advisedly), I've never seen anyone dig such a hole in my whole life.
puncheex 1 year ago
Actually whole technic issues and technology on earth (including LHC - most complicated designe created by human hand) are based on basic mathematic laws, and it works just fine. And so claimed natural phenomenas are no diffrence till some1 find way to describe them in mathematic language soooooooooooooo your remark is pointless. You fail at sarcasm dont use it too often ;) Ciao
kanedziak 2 years ago
@kanedziak: No. The singularity will take infinite time to reach, but the event horizon is easy. And I don't see how waiting in an infinite long line for the rest room is going to be nicer than getting spaghettified.
puncheex 1 year ago
@ActiveStorage: Who is passing out this canard about gravity being infinite? The gravity *field* of a black hole approaches infinity as one nears the singularity (far inside the event horizon), but the force is always finite except right on the singularity. Of course, that is also true when the distance between two masses gets very small, approaching zero.
The theory about the ultimate black hole was scrubbed by the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
puncheex 1 year ago
@MrIcicle: No - since there is no infinite mass, there is no infinite gravity. There is gravity high enough to not allow light to exit. Yes, you are affected by every black hole's gravity well, but the same is true for every star in the universe, too.
puncheex 1 year ago
@ActiveStorage: No, not true. Anything that enters the Swartzchild radius, aka the event horizon, is lost. Things outside that can escape; the jets of the accretion disk are examples of stuff pulled out right at the event horizon's front doormat and thrown outwards to escape.
puncheex 1 year ago
he should've start "first of all we invented the black holes"
ActiveStorage 3 years ago
I need one of those vaccums for my Carpets just kidding lmao! :P
XxACExX69 3 years ago
"singularity"
coteton111 3 years ago
i live in cambridge massachusetts :)
TrIumPhAnTSlaSh 3 years ago
1:12 to 1:16 is the top of a tornado
NandZseries 3 years ago
It seems more like an animation to me.
RainbowSockLover 3 years ago
@RainbowSockLover: It is. No one, even Disney, has yet gotten within thousands of light years of a moon-mass black hole.
puncheex 1 year ago
Goood
allthismovie 3 years ago
we shouldn't be afraid of black holes because they don't just necessarily swollow things but they through things out at a speed of light into the space and it's pretty to look at sometimes. This video is a awsome.
PiercingKnight 3 years ago
are you on drugs?
alltimeplaya92 3 years ago
lol excatly. I was being sarcastic to the statement that black holes are not dangerous.
PiercingKnight 3 years ago
y cant it b a white hole youtube y makes me cry ven though i am visitng from planet Tusa or what u mear humans called planet x.
av13ace 3 years ago
What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil.
Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole. It is 10^36 stronger than gravitational black hole.
CERNs specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN's LHC, the Earth will be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded by circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius of such mass is 0,009 meters.
DrDarkEnergy 3 years ago
@DrDarkEnergy: I've always liked the worm of Ouroboros theory, personally. I'm having some trouble with mass destruction, though.
The worm says: "We don't need no steenking magnetics!"
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stop Tevatron and close the LHC. Throw out big-bangers from universities. Big Bang never was. The Universe is ever young.
Hubble constant is the mirror reflection of Plank constant. These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation on opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you can find on my web-site. Big-bangers want to kill my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the particle of God, but thus, they lead us into the magnetic trap of Devil.
DrDarkEnergy 3 years ago
They talk about blackholes as if they were a proven certainty.
All sorts of speculations about something entirely theoretical.
No one has ever seen a blackhole.
HerbDangerous 3 years ago
Why you have to see something to prove it's existence? Have you ever seen your brain? But you are sure you have one right? Sorry no intention to offend you or call you stupid. Just an example. Besides how can you see a black hole when light never escapes it. I am not arguing whether black holes are real or not just saying that it is not necessary to see something to prove its existence.
justawordaway 3 years ago 4
@justawordaway The evidence of a black hole, is the intense gravity pulling on the light to a point, similar to dark matter.
mit871chell 1 year ago
@mit871chell No it is not. It is what happens according to theory but that is surely not an evidence. We cannot witness anything that happens beyond the event horizon. That is why it is called event horizon. Any event beyond that horizon has no effect on us. So how can it be an evidence? Evidence of Black hole is it's gravitational effect on the larger objects around it and the swirl of gas outside of event horizon that glows cause of immense heat from friction.
justawordaway 1 year ago
@justawordaway What you just said was what I was meaning to say, I just didn't have the appropriate words to explain.
mit871chell 1 year ago
@mit871chell You know geniuses think alike ;-)
justawordaway 1 year ago
@justawordaway lool
mit871chell 1 year ago
@justawordaway: There are only three pieces of data we can know about any black hole: it's location and velocity, its mass and its spin (angular velocity, to be exact). Together they yield angular momentum and size of the event horizon.
puncheex 1 year ago
@mit871chell: Observationally, a black hole's signature is x-rays radiating from a point too small or too dark to be a star. That was how Cygnus X-1 was determined to be a black hole. Brown and red stars are too unenergetic to radiate x-rays. This method, of course, will miss any black hole that doesn't have an accretion disk. No black hole is close enough to Earth to detect gravitationally.
puncheex 1 year ago
HerbDangerous, you should really keep up on recent events. Ever since the launch of the Hubble telescope we have captured photographic evidence of thousands of black holes within our own galaxy. We may not be able to see black holes themselves, however we can see the gas and matter that orbits them. Also, if you do not believe there is proof of black holes, look towards our own galaxy. Can you think of anything else to explain it's disc like shape aside from a supermassive black hole?
dylannater2 3 years ago 2
@dylannater2: Ummm, well, I don't think you can blame the disk on the black hole. In fact, no one knows what holds galaxies together against centrifugal force; we call it dark matter, but we don't know what that is. The galaxy is like a BH's accretion disk, though - it flattens because of common rotation around a center, and it's a true democracy - the majority rule about where the center plane is.
puncheex 1 year ago
Obviously, it is not a hole. It is certainly a super heavy object, but very little, if any matter ever "falls in". The matter of the surrounding galaxy, comes out of the object at its poles, it is then in most cases, reacquired by the object, due to its terrific gravity. Therefore, it is NOT an accretion disc.
Black holes do not exist, any more than worm holes exist. There's no such thing.
These super heavy objects are far more complex than has been suggested here.
950horsepower 3 years ago
@950horsepower: Oh, I like your confidence. If little matter ever falls in, how then do super massive black holes get that way? It can't all be hormones.I have to disagree about the jets; they pretty much come out at a high fraction of the speed of light, way beyond the galaxy's escape velocity; I've never before heard anyone say the matter eventually re-entered the galaxy it was shed from.
Cite me a cite on that "far more complex"; I'm always in a learning mode.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex lol, thank you for your comment. Of course, I am just an amateur, so they can always dis me cause i didn't say it right. The real scientists don't, because they are like you, always learning. My little confidence comes from many years of study, arriving at an hypothesis that seems to work.
If I am right, they will soon give up this notion of collapsing stars, and recognize that the galaxy grows from the center, the same as do stars. Anyway, thanks again.
950horsepower 1 year ago
So there is no other dimension on the other side of the black hole.
GuruGulu 3 years ago
HAPPY HAPPY!!!!!! lemme get this straight you want me to be happy a BLACK HOLE exsists A BIG SUCKIN MONSTER OF DEATH Look anything that can kill any form of life is considered a HUGE threat to me
xstaticdelta 3 years ago
If we didn't have Black holes, our Galaxy would not form properly.
DarkMuu666 3 years ago
o...k but they are still a threat to me
xstaticdelta 3 years ago
So is the sun then. The sun has more of a chance of destroying all life on the planet (100%) than A black hole or Gamma Ray Burst(less than or at 1%). So yeah, again, You probably wouldn't be here without the sucky monster. ;D
DarkMuu666 3 years ago
One more. It's my understanding that all man made satellites, eventually fall to earth.
Does this apply to moons and planets?
If so, would not planets orbiting the replaced center of our galaxy, (with a black hole)eventually fall into that hole?
beneehall 3 years ago
@beneehall: Well, everything eventually does something. The objects at synchronous orbit will be there a long, long time. Those we are sending out to L5 (like the James Webb telescope) aren't really in earth orbit any longer; they're actually in solar orbit. They may outlast the Earth. The ones in the Sun/Moon L2/3 (Trojan) points will be there when the final trump is played; there are asteroids that have been there since the very beginning of Earth.