Hello, and welcome to my very first "Let's Discuss". This will be a series of topic ranging from varying discussions in which have yet to have been brought up before, or not have been properly brought up.

Anyway, for this "Let's Discuss", I've decided to bring up the discussion of Black Holes. There is a massive mystery about Black Holes. No one really knows anything about it other than ideas. They do figure, though, that a Black Hole was previously a star of some sort that was dying off and exploded, and thus then starts to get smaller (to a point before it's transformation into a Black Hole) and pulls itself inward.

Now some people believe a Black Hole may lead to somewhere, pulling everything inside of it's range off into the bleakness of space. I, on the other hand believe a Black Hole isn't even a hole at all, and leads nowhere. I believe that whatever it pulls in, is thus converted into energy that is absorbed into the never ending pull that is the Black Hole. Reason why even light cannot escape a Black Hole. Because it absorbs the light. I'd rather coin the term "Black Pocket" as it's just really folding over itself and pulling stuff into the "pocket shape" it has just created for itself.

Light = Energy.
Absorbed Light = Absorbed Energy = Fading Energy/Light.
So my theory is that the closer it gets to the center of the Black Hole, the less energy said "object" has left, thus it vanishes.

So then that energy is thus spread out accordingly, throughout the entirety of the Black Hole, so that it can resume it's inward pull on objects near it.

So, what do you think of my theory, and what is your own theory of what a Black Hole is, and what it does/can do/will do?

my fav subject

First off the energy is not lost, but still resides. Light, I think, converted to generate more gravity. Since if more stars fall into it they adds more mass to the so called black hole. Vanishes is the wrong term, since energy can't be created nor destroyed, like mass, but it can be converted. Also most thought to be black holes are the center of a lot of galaxies, like the milky way for example. If you look at a picture of it the center is intensely bright, but that is probably due to a bunch of stars being a lot more abundant and tightly packed together. If black holes led anywhere it would be close to impossible to pass through, since the gravity is so great one would be crushed due to it.

The reason why some believe it could lead somewhere is that the immense amount of mass tightly packed could bend space, since it can bend light, at least I think. Some even believe it can bend time. I don't know the most about this so that is about the most I can offer.

It has been confirmed that some black holes form when a star supernovas and somewhat implodes on itself. All of that star is then condensed into a much smaller size. It has the same mass as a huge star, but takes up a lot less space.

>>3 Technically, if it can bend space it automatically has the ability to bend time as well seeing as it's space time. But that's not the interesting part of black holes, all things with mass bend both space and time.
The cool thing about black holes, in my opinion, is the fact that we have no way of describing what happens at the center, or singularity of one. Modern physics and mathematics breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole.
(My second favorite thing about black holes is that if a photon [a particle of light] is shooting towards a black hole but misses, as long as it was going at the right angle, the photon will start to orbit the black hole. Of course, we wouldn't be able to see the photon because it would never be able to reach our eyes, but it's possible that if you were to fall into a black hole, the instant before you landed on the even horizon there would be a blinding light in your face. Which is pretty cool if you ask me)

The thing that makes a Black Hole so awe-inspiring is the fact it's always been shrouded in mystery. The people who try to determine more about it are actually the Theorists, thus it's even more mystery than fact at all.

But the fact only things close enough to it are pulled in kind of better backs up my statement that it doesn't go anywhere. It's just basically itself folded over, rather than a hole in space. I feel it's still a physical entity, that's gravitational pull has increased, that uses other object's energy to help keep that pull going. The pull doesn't increase, it just leaps up 100 fold upon the conversion process into being a Black Hole. Once it converts, it just uses other energy to keep up that massive pull.

I feel a Black Hole is of a parasitic nature. Imagine a sick Super Nova. Once it dies, the parasite completely takes over. Thus changing the attributes of said Super Nova. It then uses other forms of energy not of it's own, to keep 'living'. Things that travel too close, gets pulled in, and is used as nourishment for the Black Hole. Kind of like the "Venus Flytrap" of Space.

Because i'm a loser.
-not my picture by the way if you do not know common sense.

C00L...

>>5

The people who try to determine more about it are actually the Theorists, thus it's even more mystery than fact at all.

That's not entirely true. There's actually quite a bit of information that we know about these objects and they can be even experimentally verified to exist.

I felt like I needed to clear up this misconception.

>>8
There may be somethings about them that is known, but there still is more mystery about them than facts surrounding Black Holes.

Okay, to clear up a big mystery is dark matter. I think this would contribute to a very big unkown in the field of researching objects in space. Due to the light bending in places it shouldn't, or more than it should, is attributed by dark matter. Yet no one knows what this so called dark matter is. If there is an unkown that is affecting the results of the data we use to calculate the properties of things in space not everything can be considered accurate. Nobody knows what causes the light to bend, and we use this bending of light to estimate the distance, mass, time, placement, etc. of objects in space. Though due to multiple viewing something at multiple angles we get to reduce the affect caused by the unkown.

I remember reading only a small amount about black holes and white holes, so I don't know as much as others may know, however I do remember reading a theory of how if a white hole and a black hole were to simultaneously cross over each other, and one was to enter into this abyss, time travel may actually happen.

>>9
Again, that's not really true Thiamor. Your statements make it seem as if we know no facts about Black Holes when really we know a lot about how they behave. I think it's not quite right to say that there are more mysteries than facts. But, I digress. I'm not here to start or make arguments, but to educate about a field I am quite passionate about, Science.

>>12
If I was to say we know no facts, I would actually say it. We have less facts about it. We know very little compared to what a Black Hole actually is. You can think all you want about it, but little facts about behavior, compared to how long a Black Hole has been around, and compared to the fact we just STARTED getting into Space Travel and whatnot not even 100 years ago, we don't know all too much.

is Black Hole really exist???????????

. . . You trollin'?

>>13
What do you mean, compared to what it actually is? Your post did nothing but confuse me. Space travel is irrelevant to prove your point about these structures. Though I will give you one thing, you are right that we don't know how to determine how long or how a specific black hole came into existence. But the fact of the matter is that observations bear fruit to accurate descriptions of these structures, and thus where understanding of the object comes from.

For example, we can describe multiple classifications of Black Holes based on their size and mass, and describe various properties whether these Black Holes exhibit angular momentum and charge from solutions derived from General Relativity.

A common misconception is that these things suck in everything. This is wrong in at least static black holes. The Schwarzchild radius is the distance at which most people confuse the black hole to only have an effect. This is the distance at which light cannot escape, and thus another way of defining the event horizon. But if an object, for example, a planet was out of the Schwarzchild radius but close enough to where gravity can still affect it, the object is merely caught in an elliptical orbit around the Black hole, similar as any other star. And this object will certainly not get any closer than the elliptical described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

These, and more, can be expanded on. I haven't even touched specifics on all these solutions from general relativity or thermodynamics of these systems or Quantum field theory in space-time or the specific structure of black holes or why we can't determine a black hole's origin. We know a lot about these things. You just don't know them, and I sure as well don't know them all either, but at least I know that the information about them is out there for me to learn.

>>14 Yeah they exist. We can see them. Their not a fairy tail.

>>16
I'm not saying there is no information to go on. I'm just saying that I'm pretty certain there is much more to learn, that what we do know is a small spec in relation to what there is left to learn. That because of that, what we do know is very little compared to what we can know later on. That there is still pretty much a lot of mystery about it due to the above.

I know this might be a bit off topic and sry 'bout it, but i'have 2 questions:

1. >>11 What is a white hole and what does it do?
2. i have been wondering, what is behind a black hole? or rather on the other end of it? and what about the space in between the the hole and the other end, is it possible to get sucked in a black whole if you have past the "opening" of the hole itself?

(btw sry if my questions don't make any sense my English isn't that well ^^" )

>>19

#1 - It's basically the opposite of a black hole. I can't say more than that because for one, I don't fully understand them (I can try to explain, I feel like I'll just confuse everyone) and they get really really weird when we take thermodynamics into account to explain them.

#2 - There are many arguments that can be made. Some people think that the Black Hole is a wormhole that connects two places in space-time. This would mean that if you were to cross through a Black Hole and escape through it unharmed, you've just traveled to another universe, and it'll be like you time traveled to another point in time. But you probably won't survive such an excursion into the Black Hole as the Gravitational collapse would be too much for anything to handle, and whatever tries to enter will be compressed infinitely. This is why to even attempt anything like this, we need a speculated form of matter called 'exotic matter'. Exotic, because we haven't discovered any matter with these properties and it's just really weird lol. This exotic matter just serves to counteract the strong effects of gravity to allow safe passage through the hole. Of course, it could also be that there is nothing on the other side of the hole as well, and the only thing there is a singularity.

And, as I said before, you won't get sucked in unless you cross the Schwarzchild radius. There's a higher probability you will eventually cross the radius the closer you are though, as a black hole will tend to pull you around faster the closer you get in your elliptical orbit around the singularity.

I hope this at least sort of answered your questions. I'm still learning a lot of this stuff, so yeah ^_^

>>20 You're partially right and partially wrong on a few of the things you said.

Not many credible scientist are of the position that thinks that black holes are these portal-like things that can take us from one side of the universe to the other. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Einstein-Rosen Bridges are more hypothetical than theoretical. Also, to the people who do believe in wormholes, the idea that you travel fro mone universe to another is considered, for the most part, totally asinine. Most people just think that you'd go from one point in this universe's space-time to another point in it. You wouldn't "leave the universe" necessarily.
Also, it seems to me as if you're imagining black holes like something that you fall into and then continually fall down inside of. It's more like, once again to the best of my understanding, just a large spherical mass that has an immense gravitation pull and an extremely dense center. There isn't really an "other side" of them, unless you say inside and outside.
I won't talk too much about exotic matter since I've never heard of it, but judging from your description it doesn't really sound like too much of a plausibility.

>>21

Well, that is true. I only mentioned Einstein-Rosen bridges as Ckea's question asked "what's on the other side", and I answered with the theory that fit that mode of logic (that is, an idea that considered black holes as 'portals' or 'wormholes'). But, you're right that this idea is more hypothetical. And it's certainly not the only way of going about thinking about a singularity.

It was a mistake on my part to assume that simply mentioning a singularity would imply your second paragraph, so, thanks for that addition. And you are right, it is not very plausible that we'll find this exotic matter. As an additional note, exotic matter is actually a very loose term as it is used to describe a form of matter which have different properties in which we normally observe (dark matter can be exotic matter). So in particular, the exotic matter I speak of would have to counteract the effects of gravity, which implies negative mass/energy.

Epic pic dude.

>>23
This is not to share Art. Hell that isn't even a Black Hole picture. Take your shit elsewhere and delete your post, now.

Well, I learned a lot from this thread that I didn't know before. I often forget that basic physical laws still apply to black holes despite its anomalous properties. The very name "black hole" is very misleading when it is, in fact, the exact opposite - i.e. rather than a complete lack of matter, it consists of (nearly?) infinitely dense matter.

It might not be completely related, but I always did wonder about the theory that time slows or stops about the event horizon, or even reverses within the black hole itself. I get that it's related to the theory of relativity and the fact that light cannot escape at that point, but the topic has always been a bit fuzzy to me. Is it even considered plausible, or is that just sci-fi bullshit people came up with?

it should be called a matter sphere, im guessing it would make more sense that way. :D

>>25
Your question about the event horizon has to do with a popular thought experiment used to explain the various mechanics of Relativity concerning black holes. Let me try to explain it as best I can.

Imagine two people making a journey across space in a ship. Let's call one person Alpha and the other Beta. One day, they happen to come across a Black Hole. Beta gets the fantastic idea to go into the Black Hole to see what would happen. So Alpha stays in the ship and observes Beta going down the Black Hole. What do they each see? According to General Relativity, Alpha would see Beta going down the Black Hole slower and slower as time goes by. Alpha would eventually see Beta sitting completely still. As this is happening, Alpha is also seeing Beta get fainter and fainter. These effects have to do with the light distortion that is happening to the light that eventually reaches Alpha as stated by Special Relativity. But what about Beta? Beta would actually see no change. Beta would fall into the Black Hole seeing Alpha and the ship with no change until the immense gravitational effects tear Beta apart (this part isn't too pretty). So this same effect is what causes clocks to appear slower when closer to an event horizon, which is what you may mean by 'time stops when closer to the event horizon'. Even when discussing Einstein-Rosen bridges, it isn't the actual event horizon that induces the hypothetical time travel, but the fact that there is a connection in space-time that when an object crosses it, it would reach its destination before light would from point A to point B.

>>26
While this is correct, calling something a matter sphere would be too broad for correct definition and practice. Technically, planets and moons could be called matter spheres lol. The reason black holes are called black holes are because they cannot be seen, as all light that crosses the Schwarzchild radius would get sucked in instead of reflecting off of the object, rendering the object invisible and impossible to detect by any part of the electromagnetic spectrum (directly anyways, there are ways to detect black holes with light indirectly) rather than implying a 'complete lack of matter'.

I believe that 'black holes', or what you refer as 'black pocket' is a mere space within space. In other words, if the space, filled with dark matter and energy, composes of zero gravity attraction (except for the uniform centripetal acceleration between orbiting objects) then a black hole would be within the negative gravitation scale or possibly the theory of space annihilation (like how positron annihilates electron)?

....hmmm..... or maybe a hole/pocket-like zone where the temperature of the area reaches beyond the [absolute zero]!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pAnRKD4raY

a really cool video about black holes.

The first thing you have to realize with black holes is that they aren't a hole; they're more like a densely packed ball. In the same way Earth's gravity keeps you on the surface so does a black hole's gravity keep you on its surface. It's not a portal of some kind or anything. The reason light can't escape a black hole's gravity is because the speed at which to escape the gravitational field of a black hole is higher than that of the speed of light.

Black holes are shrouded in mystery because you can't observe them directly, you can only observe their affects on other objects. Theorists can guess away but we'll never know. Technology won't be able to observe them because spaghettification (yes, real word, it's the vertical stretching and horizontal compression applied to an object in a strong gravitation field caused by extreme tidal forces, look it up) would destroy any device we put in a black hole's gravitational field and the signals wouldn't be able to escape the gravity to send back data as well. Unfortunately all we can do is guess.

I feel like a troll for wanting to point out this thread isn't actually about technology... ._.

But as to the actual conversation, I think >>30 has said anything I'd want to add to the conversation.

>>27

So basically your explanation hinges on the fact that time itself is not altered by the presence of a black hole rather our own sense of time. And since we rely on changes in what we see, like movements or a clock face or digits moving, to judge the passage of time we would feel that time is altered due to the black hole 'cause Person A will see B fading while B would'nt see any change in the short time before annihilation.

Einstein's theories of relativity in regards to subjective time as one approaches the speed of light usually comes into play in a conversation about black holes, but my problem with this is that I feel that time most certainly does not exist.

Time as we understand it marks the passing of events at regular intervals, of course, exists, but really as little more than an idea.

Time as any sort of... If you will, medium (or fabric) in which we exist seems preposterous to me. Time cannot be bent or stretched, altered or superseded. All events that have happened exist (or, really, don't exist) in the same state, and all future events lie in the same state of nonexistence as well.

There is matter, and there is energy, and it seems at science is beginning to equate the two... Assuming time is a real force, it would presumably be an energy, so... try to imagine time as matter, like light or other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum exist as photons... @.@

Of course, no advance science is concrete as of yet, so really it's still all pretty much up for grabs.

>>33
Well Time is like the only thing that cannot be seen or altered. Everything else in the world can be seen in someway. May it be through normal eyes or microscopes. Time is as stated, can't be bent, altered, seen. SO maybe you're right. That it doesn't exist.

>>34 Actually that isn't quite right. Time actually moves slower the closer you get to an object of great gravitational pull, like the earth or a black hole. so, if one were to try and enter a black hole, they would fail because time would continuously slow to the poor where it would approach unmoving. Although, common theory suggests that if one were to successfully enter a black hole one of two things would happen: 1) they would be torn to shreds by the black hole's gravitational pull, or 2) they would pop out of a (in theory) "white hole" somewhere else in space.

These are the principals I'm challenging. I feel that time doesn't exist, and that these changes in time are not time at all, but would be explained by other factors. The point that time dilation would stop you from entering a black hole, (which is theoretically sound, because proximity decreases rate of time, and time would 'stop' for objects moving infinitely closer to the black hole) leaves any photons and other matter suspended in time around the black hole... Eventually this would build up, over billions and billions of years, to the point where there would be massive amounts of energy and matter simply sitting around the black hole... If for some reason this shell didn't affect gravity, the black hole would be shut off from the universe at some point.

Assuming it DOES have gravity, the event horizon of the black hole is constantly and exponentially increasing as its mass and gravity increase, and considering it takes a black hole a billion billion billion billion billion billon (give or take a few uses of the word billion) times the universe's life to die, the entire universe is doomed to be absorbed by black hole's and surrounding frozen time fields. Or perhaps should have already.

All the while, the black hole and it's immediate surroundings are complete frozen in time. Except of course for Hawking Radiation that travels out and away from black holes, through the immense gravity and even frozen time. Buying into the whole time theory pretty much mandates believing in magical time traveling radiation. (or more accurately NOT time traveling, as we are currently moving through time (presumably at a rate of one second per second), and Hawking Radiation must exist and be able to be transmitted in the absence of time.)

So, it may seem like a bit of juvenile time for me to argue 'We just don't know why yet', but accepted science does the same.

A black hole is a phenomenon caused by the function of gravity, gravity is a function of general relativity, general relativity is supposedly a function of the curvature of space time, which is caused by a mass generation mechanism modern, and likely well into the future, science would tell you 'we just don't know about yet'.

So really it all comes back around to whether or not you believe time is a real physical thing that can be altered, which I believe it isn't and cannot.

Of course, we'll never truly know until we know, and there are of course millions of minds greater than my own, so in the grand scheme of things we're all clueless, and it's still all up in the air.

Maybe it'll be a Dollar who one day proves or disproves the existence of time... Maybe our conversation has inspired a few young physicists... :D

Here is a question, though I am not a physicist, I was flying with the idea of breaking the light barrier. Given what I have read about black holes, I wonder if it is possible to send a particle near or into the event horizon an use the gravitational pull and slowing of time to sling shot the particle at speeds faster than light, proving that light's speed barrier can be broken by objects of matter. Could that be possible?

Theoretically, M, the event horizon is the distance from the black hole where light cannot escape. The same rules would apply to an object at light speed. Therefore, to surpass the speed of light and escape an event horizon, your object would have to be already travelling faster than the speed of light... xD

For an object to pass near a black hole (but not within the point of no return) and slingshot around it increasing accelerating to greater speeds is theoretically possible I suppose, but the larger the diameter of an area of gravity, the less likely an object is to approach it at a perfect angle to slingshot. As large as the area of gravity around a black hole is, the angle of approach necessary may well be impossible.

Another important note to make is that according to commonly accepted theories of relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, it approaches infinite mass and energy... Therefore, according to Einstein and his friends, your particle 'breaking the light barrier' would, when equating the entirety of the universe to a single grain of sand, be like a trillion trillion trillion (...ad infinitum...) trillion trillion trillion nuclear bombs, or black holes, or other incomparable force or object, essentially destroying not only the universe and everything in it, but also time, space, and reality.

In response to 36, I must agree, Time does not exist. It is simply a human perception. If anything the Universe could be described as Speed.

As to this conversation, i must say this debate is interesting, though this theory is a bit simplier than a Sea of Dirac.

h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / D i r a c _ s e a

Stiens; Gate. Nuff said.

>>37 the "light barrier" is a limiting point. to surpass light speed would mean that you would be arriving at your destination before you had left your starting point. it is impossible to surpass light speed. and with modern tech, it is impossible to even get anywhere near it to find out if it is possible.

>>39 the universe is described as both a place and an object, because it is made of existing matter. it is real, and not theoretical, like speed.

>>36 time does exist. it is an event. if time did not exist, living beings would not die, matter would not decay, etc etc. time may not be an object made up of tangible matter, like the universe, but it is real and it does exist. we don't notice because we move through it at a speed of 1 second per second.