 | | Black Holes —Stefan Garcia
|
| | | A Black Hole is supposed to be a collapsed neutron (type?) star, right? So then, why is a Black Hole always depicted as an infinite toilet-flush? I can understand that the "matter disc" forms into a disc because of gravity, like the rings of a (...) (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Black Holes —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) Because it is a good (2D) description of its gravitational potential. Jacob (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Stefan Garcia
|
| | | | | | (...) I figured as much. So they really are infinitely dense pinpoints then, right? -Stefan- p.s. Cool rowing boat. (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's the prevailing theory. Another is that they really are a toilet flush, with all of the sucked in matter getting spat out somewhere else through a spatial wormhole of some sort. Carl Sagan tossed that out as a possibility in Contact (...) (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Allister McLaren
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Perhaps it's converted into 'dark matter'. Allister (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) :-) Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) I haven't been inside one recently, but that's the theory (IIRC). (...) Thanks. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Black Holes —Tom Sciortino
|
| | | | | "Stefan Garcia" <sastrei@netscape.net> wrote in message news:HJGJrG.1BC9@lugnet.com... (...) So (...) can (...) like the (...) the (...) Your infinitely small pinpoint sounds about right. The "border" of a black hole is defined as the even horizon, (...) (21 years ago, 11-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Michael Bosch
|
| | | | | | (...) The "matter" a black hole gives off is Xrays. The constant streamout of Xrays is what will, in about 10e60 years (what? no exponent in FTX?) cause black holes to start exploding. At this time, exploding black holes will be the only source of (...) (21 years ago, 12-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Black Holes —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | (...) Hate to be a bummer, but the only matter black holes "emit" would be Hawking Radiation, and scientists are unsure about what will happen when a black hole stops. X-ray are a type of light, and since, by definition, black holes don't emit (...) (21 years ago, 15-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Black Holes —John Spencer Rezkalla
|
| | | | | (...) If it's a rotating black hole (and just about everything in the universe rotates), then the vacuum solution to the Einstein Field equations gives a flat ring shaped singularity rather than a point. (21 years ago, 12-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Black Holes —Rick Hallman
|
| | | | | No, Stefan, a Black Hole is a collapsed super-giant star. If a star is like our sun it will grow, then shrink to a white dwarf. If it were some bigger, it would collapse to a neutron star (where a spoonful weighs millions of tons), and if it were a (...) (21 years ago, 12-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Black Holes —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | (...) "infinite toilet flush" as you call it is using a three dimensional model to describe 4 dimensional spacetime. In the typical diagram, the x and y axis describe area, while the z axis (up and down) describes graviational warping of spacetime. (...) (21 years ago, 15-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| | | | |
