Outpost Universe Forums
Projects & Development => GORF => Hall of Fame => Topic started by: evecolonycamander on May 12, 2010, 11:27:35 AM
-
Before i get into the arguements I KNOW are going to follow this post, I would like to warn you that this stuff is HIGHLY theoretical and that I of couse will defend my theroys nonstop. thanks
Now for the subject matter: What Are Black Holes, what is it like to be inside one(asuming by some miracle you can survive and escape), and lastly what about the idea of a white hole (gravity in reverse)?
CK edit: the grammer and spelling were getting to me too much
-
CK edit: the grammer and spelling were getting to me too much
Ah, that explains why it was so lucid. Much appreciated.
Regardless:
BLARARARARARUGHUGH (http://arklon.outpostuniverse.net/other/BLAR.UGH.wav)
EDIT (leeor_net): edited download link to make it clear it's no longer active
-
Now this is a fun topic.
Okay first thing's first: black holes are a FACT and are accepted as such by physicists and cosmologists alike. In fact, the #1 person to speak to about black holes is none other than cosmologist Steven Hawking.
Now, according to scientific knowledge, a black hole is the result of the death of a super-massive star. It got to the point at which its gravity overpowered the nuclear energy it produced, and all of its mass colapsed towards the center. Black holes give physicists a hadache because the gravitational force is near infinite, and causes the laws that govern physics as we know it to be invalid.
I would imagine the inside of the event horizon of a black hole would be somewhat viewable, as super-small black holes glow. This glowing seems to imply that, while light can't escape the gravitational pull, it isn't destroyed. At the center, you would see a super-dense sphere of "matter" (though, it wouldn't be matter as we conventionally think of it). Some theories even go as far as to suggest that black holes create a bridge between universes, though we are unlikely to ever know the truth.
Based on the cycling of the natural world, I have come to theorize that black holes are much like the universe before the big bang. To be more specific, I think it's a continuing cycle where (nearly) all black holes eventually condense into one super-massive black hole, get to the point where the mass is forced to revert back to energy, and the universe begins anew. Though, I doubt this theory will ever get its chance to be tested.
A white hole isn't really gravity in reverse. In many theories, it is the answer to a black hole: all the matter that gets sucked in gets spewed back out. While this is an interesting concept, I personally don't view it as a plausible object. Why? Well, if everything a black hole took in came out, they wouldn't get bigger. However, smaller black holes can combine to become larger ones, therefore we know the matter is not coming back out. The closest things I know of to the concept of a white hole are pulsars and gamma-ray bursts. In both cases, energy is being spewed out of a stellar body. With pulsars, it's a neutron star emitting beams of EM radiation. Gamma-ray bursts, on the other hand, occur during the collapse of massive stars and can be thrown out by black holes. However, neither case can classify as the defininbg example of the white hole object.
-
now is where i make things interesting, define what the big bang needed to be in order to happen. stumped. ya i know a wight hole by definition cant exist and a black hole is unexcapeable. do you see where i'm headed with this
-
now is where i make things interesting, define what the big bang needed to be in order to happen. stumped. ya i know a wight hole by definition cant exist and a black hole is unexcapeable. do you see where i'm headed with this
BLACK THEARY?
-
actually i had for gotten about my little(not so) episode of wormholes, so to answer your question, no
-
BLACK THEARY?
WHITE POW THEARY
-
now is where i make things interesting, define what the big bang needed to be in order to happen.
I already told you in my original post. Do you know why a black hole emits a gamma-ray burst? It is because it has taken in too much mass at once. The mass reverts to energy, and is spewed out along the axis with the least resistance. With that in mind, think about what might happen if supermassive black holes combine and react this way. You start with a singularity and end up with a massive expansion of energy. All in all, we are just a cycle within a cycle within a cycle.
-
yes BUT how. NOTHING once it passes the swartzchild radius can return and White holes cant exist(so they say)
-
How what? We know from the birth of a blackhole that it is not a 1-way trip. In fact, the black hole forms at the center of the star and starts eating it from the inside. however, the rate of mass flowing in proves to be too much and matter/energy is released, causing what is known as a hypernova...hmmm...that would be a fun mod to the supernova...hehehe
-
it collapses on its self enlarging the Event horizon indefently. now what happens to the mass is that it is partially turned into energy of which some of it escapes right before it crosses the event horizon. correct?
-
no, it went in, but there is a limit to how fast the blackhole can grow, and the star is collapsing in too fast. That's what casues the mass-ejection.
-
or so you think... k think of an onion its layered and each layer has more mass then the last. so if it where a BH it would mean for in order for it to have its event horizon to spreed an extra AU it needs more matter then the last AU needed so it is forever growing... just slower and slower. dose this make seance?
-
no, not or so I think, so I know :P You're discussing a topic I am quite familiar with because I watch the History and Discovery channels more than any others (so I've seen just about every Black Hole special that has been on).
-
Stuff you most likely found on Wikipedia only moments before posting.
ECC: Shut up. Reading Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert.
CK9: Shut up. Watching the Discovery channel doesn't make you an expert.
Black holes are stupid. Stop beating [size=0]off[/size] the dead horse.
-
i dont use wiki, much. as for discovery/ history channels i do watch them often but also i am doing LITERAL research into it and am using every known recorce that i can(other then going to a singularly its self.) and i am using it to prove the idea of White holes, the stellar opposite of a black hole, witch i believe could be part of what explains the "Big Bang Theory". i also believe that the reason for objects to be both older then and farther then 14 billion years old/far (please correct the age as i have forgotten again) is that the BBT to have happened in shells or stages. but again it is HIGHLY THEORETICAL.
edit: im going to ask you nicely sirbomber that if you do not have any thing intelligent to say then don't post, please.
-
edit: im going to ask you nicely sirbomber that if you do not have any thing intelligent to say then don't post, please.
I could say the same for you, except I did already:
ECC: Shut up. Reading Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert.
CK9: Shut up. Watching the Discovery channel doesn't make you an expert.
-
What he said was completely intelligent, unlike most of what you're posting/posted.
Your latest post seems contradictory to what you've posted before. You state you are doing research, yet I see very little proof of research. The Discovery channel is a far better source than Wikipedia, but it still won't make you an expert. Neither will random Google searches if you can't spell half the words right.
-
Before i get into the arguements I KNOW are going to follow this post, I would like to warn you that this stuff is HIGHLY theoretical and that I of couse will defend my theroys nonstop. thanks
Told you all it would happen. also "Shut up" shows a complete lack of creativity thus showing unintelligibly...but im going to stop before this gets out of hand. now by any chance could fusion/fission occur inside of the singularity?
-
bomber, at what point did you get the impression I was saying I was an expert? I merely stated that I know quite a bit about it, not nearly everything. Putting words of grandure into my mouth will inly result negatively for you. As to shutting up, screw you. This is a forum section where open discussion of opinion on topics is encouraged. You've been here long enough to where i shouldn't have to explain that to you.
If I seem rude at all, I don't really care that much right now 'cause I just woke up fro a long nap.
edit: typing merely affected my spelling of nearly, lol
-
so... can fusion/fission accure at the center of a BH
sorry bout spelling
-
whoops, wrong button :/ Sorry bomber, went to hit quote and accidently deleted (second time this happened, first time was an awesome post by hooman)
-
You must do something about button placement then :huh:
-
This is going to sound like spam but can fusion/fission accure at the center of a BH
sorry bout spelling
-
whoops, wrong button :/ Sorry bomber, went to hit quote and accidently deleted (second time this happened, first time was an awesome post by hooman)
Smooooth. :rolleyes:
ECC: We heard you the first 45298 times. The only thing that happens inside a black hole is swirling gravity-induced doom.
-
talking about the inside of a black hole is like talking about the future:
you can say a million different things and one is bound to be correct, but it doens't mean you were right. Until we can somehow find a way to build a probe that can survive past the event horizon, we won't ever know about the center. Therefore, asking such questions is futile.
-
I don't know about blackholes/darkholes w/e, but...
There is infact a theory of what occurs inside wormholes....
It's like a sideways vortext with lightning going through the edges.
Ever heard of the bermuda triangle? because of the Eath's magnetic field and all the lead at that area, there have been some mysteries that scientist are still trying to solve. Like how one of our air planes arrived at miami from latin america within 30 mins of flight.... It's un realistic, but it happens. Plus all those people who have gone lost within that region..... Yes there are scientific theories behind this.
But there is no clear explination for them as of now.
Worms holes bend the fabric of space and time (according to scientists).
so any comments questions? (i'll be back on 5 hours from now to check).
-
talking about the inside of a black hole is like talking about the future:
you can say a million different things and one is bound to be correct, but it doens't mean you were right. Until we can somehow find a way to build a probe that can survive past the event horizon, we won't ever know about the center. Therefore, asking such questions is futile.
And of course, then we'd have to deal with all the possibilities. If it just destroys everything, that's gonna be one strong-ass probe. If it's a wormhole, we're gonna need a bigger antenna. etc etc.
-
uhh... if only they where lost. the planes have been are found(♪under the sea♪). now back to the topic. do you think that at pressures that high fission/fusion can occur. i know that neutron stars have "earth"quakes so that means some form of geological activity is occurring. can that mean that a small bit of fusion is occurring too even in the point of no return, BH's?
-
well, some planes have been found, there's still no full confirmation as to whether they are the missing ones or drug cartell planes that were dumped. Back on topic, though:
Fission is unlikely, but fusion seems almost garunteed due to the high gravitational forces. As to the seismic events of neutron stars, I believe that is caused by energy variations, but it's been a long while since I've seen anything on the 3 odd-balls (neutron, pulsar, magnetar (yes, I know the other 2 are types of the first, but you can have a neutron star that is neither of the other two...if I remember right))
-
well what about the fact that right at the event horizon fission is occurring. that has been proven
-
well what about the fact that right at the event horizon fission is occurring. that has been proven
Here's an idea.
Cite your sources or stop talking.
-
Brand new school edition Textbooks the NASA website and numerous others, also the daily Washington post(newspaper). ill post there names tomorrow.
-
that's the event horizon, not the core. It makes sense for it to occur there because the ammounts of radiation that come off of a black hole.
-
well wouldent it make sence to have it uccor at the sigulary as well. it could help explain why the magnetic felds are so strong. rotation dosent explain the magnitism entirely.
sorry bout spelling.
-
magnetic feilds on stellar bodies are formed because of the cycling of conductive materials. Earth has one because the molten core has a lot of iron that is constantly being moved around by thermal variation. For stars, it's conductive plasmas forming the magnetic field. Fission has nothing to do with magnetic fileds beyound the use of such fields to contain the reactions in theoretical power sourcces such as the tokamak (which has been dropped for a new design because it could not produce enough energy even to cover the energy cost to power it up and run it).
Sometimes, I hate that the i and the o are right next to eachother, makes me misspell quite a few words >.<
-
well i managed to find one of the text books
Astronimy today
sorry bout spelling
-
first off till you get hawking on the forums to post a equation to implode all of our heads.
A black hole beyond the disk of hot gas it makes cant be directly viewed. I suspect black holes are really what the aborigonies are really scared of taking there soul. Also EVERY scientist referres to the inside of the black hole as a singularity which is a term of ignorance. Basicly meaning they have no f***ing idea. And dont mix wormholes and black holes together. theroies that they cant possibly do the same thing but one is magical and cant kill you and can only be held open by a exotic negitive matter that cant be created very easily at all or for very long. POOF. Black holes and fission is possible but at the same time the current running idea is that its gravity is so great that it smashes every thing down to smaller then a atom.
And from what I remember Gamma ray bursts are made from the Mega Super Nova and not black holes themselves the energy given off the axis of the black holes is nothing but energy. And seeing as black holes give off massive Xrays i believe it to be xrays coming out the axis.
You also have to remember how scientists works to. There is this group and that group they will both say the opposite of each other. And then there are people like the time cube guy who are completely bonkers.
freeza has spoken
-
If I'm remembering right, there is a black hole that is giving off a fairly constant gamma-ray stream that goes straight through another galaxy (it was a special on the search for earth-like planets, talking about how that killed off any life that might have once existed there).
There is evidence of nano-scale/smaller wormholes existing through experiments that show sub-atomic particles traveling through a solid metal bar (can't remember if it was lead or something else) faster than light speed. If I could remember which channel and what special I would link it :/
-
Yes I know what your talking about the super massive black hole that has a plasma stream hitting another galaxy. I dont think any one has said they are gamma ray or not tho. What is known is Gamma Ray bursts are the deaths of super massive stars before the black hole is born. As for the earth like planets I think you are referring to the the 2 planets that orbit pulsar stars.
As for sub atomic particles travelling through things That could very well be tachyons. The fact that we dont know what it is and we call it wormholes is just a sign of ignorance till we actually know what it is. theories are just paper till they are proven right. much like super symmetry and string theory.
-
the science fiction of today could very well be the science of tomorrow
if you look back at history you will find this very true. at one point the idea for black holes was just that, an idea. it was such a bad one that the guy who proved it, Albert Einstein, thought that "Nature Can not and will not allow this." then in the center of our very own galaxy, we found proof, 7 stars are orbiting an massive unseen object.
on Monday i will post the images and simulations of the black hole
-
Could does not imply will.
Basically, we are trying to define an unknown by observing its effects and assuming our math is correct. A similar thing is happening with artificial intelligence, but that's another story.
I haven't delved into black holes and other modern theories, but the number of theories in circulation indicates that the end of these questions will only come once we are able to make actual measurements from within or at least around these mysterious celestial objects, be it black holes, wormholes, or others that have yet to come (the idea of yet more other objects/entities hidden to us at the moment should not be foreign to us).
On the subject of our universe's history: due to some similarities in areas of the universe that indicate their origin in the same area and their distance (which is greater what distance light could have traveled during the same time period) has led to the theory that, at least sometime during that time period, the speed of light was not the highest speed attainable by matter. Another possibility would be of some "shortcuts", possibly through real dimensions through which passage is conditioned... So, so many theoretical explanations that cover a few aspects but fall on other simultaneously applicable aspects.
Anyway, of interest is the theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not the absolute maximum. Since we can't even comprehend what happens past the speed of light, we might not even be able to detect entities found in the state of above light speed manifestation.
Are we so sure that the limits of nature we claim to know are constants? We have only been able to define and watch some of these for no more than a few hundred years. In astronomical terms, our observation of constants could be only an infinitesimal area on the graph of their evolution (those who have studied calculus should understand)
I have lost track... I might return later.
-
As for the earth like planets I think you are referring to the the 2 planets that orbit pulsar stars.
No, I was talking about how astronomers are looking for earth-like planets for signs of life and possibly possible places of future human colonization (though, that is something that isn't anywhere close to the near future)
-
i forgot that i couldnt upload to this part of the forum. so sorry none of my simulations can be shown
-
Then upload your "simulations" somewhere else...
Like, I dunno, the File Forum?
-
WOW the world is full of smart A**es. lol. i find that funny. i am doing that tomorrow when i am at the computer i saved the stuff to.
-
Smartass is a word used to describe someone who points out the obvious to dumbasses.
-
and then there's the wiseass, but noone pays him any heed
-
I wanted to post in this earlier but I couldn't let myself get distracted from studying for finals.
There is also a thought experiment where a person approaches a black hole, and then another person watches.
The experiment goes on with the victim (person heading for the black hole) get closer and closer to the event horizon. Neglect any gravitational spaghettification that would kill him for now. From his point of view the entire universe would be speeding up and appear more blue (Doppler). From the observer the victim would get redder and more faded.
Now the instant the victim hits the event horizon (kinda need to think of a person as a point for this to work) he will see the universe end. Additionally any chance of survival is destroyed (with some exceptions explained below) because there will be so much radiation on the victim from the outside universe that he will disintegrate. This has a name, which escapes me at the moment.
Now about the odd exceptions.
I don't know much background behind this but one of Hawking's theories states that if the black hole is rotating or supermassive then a ship with large charged plates on the side could fly in without problems.
I typed this up after skimming over the thread, so please forgive me for any repeated comments.
-
i think the reaion is that chaerged plates alow for the magnetic fealds to not in hibit any thing at all
sorry bout spelling
-
No more sorry about spelling. Just spell. How come my (Firefox) browser can spell check implicitly?
Translation of your text:
I think the reason is that charged plates allow for the magnetic fields to not inhibit anything at all
-
how about everyone actually starts making an effort to spell correctly instead of being lazy about it and making excuses >.<
-
im useing IE so NO SPELL CHECK. now this is not an english report so i will ask you all politely to get off my back. thank you now about my last post did it make sence(what it means, not its spelling)
no spell check
-
I use IE too, but i still manage to spell 90% of what I type correctly. Meanwhile, most of the stuff you mispell is stuff that you should know how to spell by now, so no spell check is not an exscuse.
and when it comes to charged plates, all you have to look at is charged particles going through a magnetic field to explain it.
-
really? i just read through ~10 posts about you ripping on him!
back on topic... a theoretical white hole would not have a neighboring system... it would form and reside in the "empty" space between galaxies
-
lets say that this theoretical WH came from a BH with a neboring system. what happens then. dose it push it away or dose it keep all these objects in orbit?
misspelled neboring
-
/rant
Just because you include "rant" somewhere in your post doesn't mean it's not stupid. :P
ECC: Just a random thought I had, but you seem to want to be taken seriously, and it really hurts your credibility when you can't spell half the terms you're talking about.
Anyways, maybe we should talk about this here: http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=4982 (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=4982)
Back on topic: To the best of my knowledge (admittedly, very little) white holes don't really exist, so why do you keep talking about them? Black holes have been observed. White holes have not. Something that emits no light is a lot harder to detect than something that emits a whole lot of it. So why have black holes been observed and accepted as a real phenomenon while white holes haven't?
-
because the only possibility of a known one has only existed at the beginning of time "BIG BANG THEORY"
-
and because hypothetically is fun!
anyway... the WH and BH would probably stay in an orbit?
witch would cancel out both, but never allow them to eat each other...
-
in thery a WH can and will not alow ANYTHING inside
on the other hand a BH can and will not alow ANYTHING outside
so as one pushes the other pulls they ether create a nutral zone or doble the power for each other
im useing IE
sorry bout spelling
-
*feeds all 100% offtopic posts to the garbage bin*
If you had them close to one-another, they might be in balance with eachother, though anything in the middle would be forced to the blackhole.
However, if there was such an object, we should have seen it by now. It would be one very bright object...however it might also be short lived, causing itself to riven by its very nature...
-
or it could be mascerading as a star of any luminosity
sorry bout spelling
-
if what ever goes in a black hole comes out a white hole in some form. Its probably not going to look like a star. How ever the most i have heard about white holes is there in a different universe then our own that have different laws that govern it which is how a white hole could exsist. That being said you aint going to use one for teleporting to other universes. as you would basicly fall apart once coming out the other side. As for seeing it there alot of sky out there. But the one thing would be it would give off so much radiation any of the radio telescopes would have found it. To be honest i think its just humans looking for every thing to be a nice cycle instead of a end that still cant be explained yet. every thing even light crushed down into smaller then a atom till some one figures out that math no one knows a damn thing.
-
what if it gives off only minute amounts of energy or just enough to have it resemble a star. but we will never know until we can travel to other stars in a timely fashion.
hope this made sense
-
By the very description of a white hole, that is not possible.
And Freeza, it is still a cycle. It began with the big bang and ended with a black hole, but we know from the birth of black holes that they have some limits to how much they can take in at a time, and from the energy given off how much they can hold at certain sizes.
-
they could even be what we see as active BH's. if you think about it an active BH outputs extremely large amounts of energy(mostly x-rays and gamma rays) and mass(usually hydrogen) mabie they are not active BH's but high discharge WH's.
-
no, they are blackholes. Their gravity is the proof. By its originating definition, a whitehole cannot exist.
-
well all the mass makeing up a white hole would atract objects almost like a black hole. but at the event horizon an object would degenerate, stop, and move back words giving the illusion of an active black hole.
sorry bout spelling.
note: fixed some spelling errors
-
but if that were the case, there would be some light generation, thereby making it visible, and thereby making it unmistakable with a black hole.
-
some thing to add to the last post
what if this WH is only pushing mass out in very minute amounts. so minute that it only shows up in the radio part of the spectrum. (there are "radio" galaxies). or it may show up with small doses of high energy. (X-Ray/gamma spectrum)
-
The concept of a white hole violates the first law of thermodynamics. You break the law, you get punished!
-
how so... :unsure:
better yet post all the laws
-
That will be fast, lol:
0) If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
(duh)
1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
2) (basically, energy can go from high to low, but not low to high (ex: energy can go from a hot surface to a cold one, but not the other way around))
3) As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.
-
so what dose a WH brake. im not seeing it.
-
For a white hole to emit any kind of energy, it would have to either take in some other form of energy or take in mass, which gets transformed into energy. Since, as I understand, the white hole is supposed to only spit out energy and not take in... anything, then it breaks the first law of thermodynamics, just as CK9 said.
-
or if a BH is some how(dont know how) converted into a WH then it could start to release energy
again im useing ie and cant download the add on so no spellcheck for another week
-
if that were the case, galaxies would never form. It takes quite a while for enough blackholes to coalesce into a supermassive blackhole capable of holding galaxies together.
-
it could be a very rare occurrence witch would explain why a galaxy some times has no exact form
FIXED! spelling
-
if it were to happen, it would cause all the cosmic bodies to become wanderers and the galaxy would be no more
-
well super massive black holes could have been made in a few ways. black hole collisions a really really really large star collapsing or it grew naturally over time when there was alot of material floating around.
as said before a white hole cant exsist in this universe. But it could in another universe where the laws are different so thats would be the only way that you can have a white hole. so you will never see one in this universe.
Radio galaxies Just means a large amount of activity it doesnt mean a white hole. It could have alot of pulsars or black holes How ever Not all galaxies ,that have blackholes super massive or other wise, emitt these signals.
Well galaxies wouldnt be formed in the ways that we know them there are clouds which could be called galaxies there just a group of stars.
Also black holes evaporate over time due to the fact they absorb negetive virtual particles. these particles destroy each other instantly. unless in the presence of the black hole. then only the possitive particles escape.
-
My point was the force of a white hole would force the galaxy apart.
"negative virtual particles" are you talking about antimatter? I thought it was all destroyed within the first few moments of the universe...or are you talking about something else i have yet to hear about?
-
if the WHs only appear very very rare then i don't think that the universe fly apart(more so then it already is.)
oh and i found something disturbing about the age of the (known) universe's age and size, it is AT LEAST twice its age and size if the quote i found is correct.
also as i don't have the book with me i will have to post the quote tomorrow.
-
Who said anything about the universe flying apart? If a SMBH becamae a WH, then the galaxy it was holding would fly apart.
-
not necessarily the galaxy may be held together by its own gravity
-
oh and i found something disturbing about the age of the (known) universe's age and size, it is AT LEAST twice its age and size if the quote i found is correct
So, the age of the universe is twice the age of the universe?
So u = 2u where u = 2u where u = 2u where ...
I think this may be another "the sun is powered by everything" moment.
-
He probably meant that the supposed true age of the universe is twice the known / previously accepted age of the universe. Why that would be disturbing, I am interested in finding out.
Out of curiosity: Has any galaxy been observed to have flown apart yet?
-
ECC, a white hole forces stuff away from it, therefore the gravity of the individual parts is moot.
-
virtual particles are not antimatter as its called antimatter. Virtual particles are created in pairs which are then attracted to each other and destroy each other much like antimatter and matter. How ever like I said before the negetive particle gets trapped by the black hole and slowly evaporates it. the positive particle is able to escape.
yes a white hole is the opposite of a black hole so it would probably be short and violent and would just explode violently but there is no way one could exsist in our universe.
as for the age of the universe who knows it could be older or younger then we think but what we have right now is a good idea based on the radiation left over from the big bang.
As for a galaxy flown apart im not sure what you mean. since they are all in there current forms caused by the gravity of a super massive black hole if it went away the galaxy would loose coheasion and dissapate. There are cases of galaxy collisions tho.
-
It is referring to the transformation of a blackhole into a whitehole (which, of course is not possible within our iteration of a universe). The force of the whitehole would overpower the force of gravity, seeing as gravity is on the weaker end of the fundamental forces of nature.
I'm surprised I haven't heard of virtual particles before this...though I have heard of blackholes evaporating. Is it known what causes them to form, or is it more of a theoretical thing to help explain the evaporation?
-
well a white hole forming from a black hole aint possible. at lease in my eyes. Any way a Black hole will explode once its gravity can no longer contain its contents much like a star does at the end of its like only its due to its size rather then the fight between radiation and gravity. that doesnt make it a white hole tho.
but yes a white hole would be making anti gravity if it were opposite to a black hole meaning it would cause alot of chaos if there were ever one to happen.
-
yes, I know that, but I decided to indulge in the scenario to prove the point that the object could not be formed in such a manner.
-
i guess you will need this then.
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/download.html (http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/download.html)
tomorrow i will start posting the simulations in the file forum(unless im busy)
quick edit: you will need the updated .exe file found here as well so that some of the simulations will run
http://orbitsimulator.com/gravity/beta/Gra...ta2009Nov23.exe (http://orbitsimulator.com/gravity/beta/GravitySimulatorBeta2009Nov23.exe)
-
sorry about the doble post.
the but ive just made the first simulation of a black hole. it is located in the file forum
http://forum.outpost2.net/index.php?showto...t=0&#entry73042 (http://forum.outpost2.net/index.php?showtopic=4988&st=0&#entry73042)
i will make more but i need time
wait, doble has two b's correct?
-
Call me lazy and / or paranoid, but I'd rather not have to install something to be able to view your simulations.
Also, only because you asked, it's spelled double.
-
thanks. dont worry no virises and every thing works. alltho it dose crash ocasionaly
sorry bout spelling
-
dude just look for this stuff on youtube i know its there what your looking for
-
im sorry can you rephrase that. i had trouble understanding. unless you meant someone else's simulations are on youtube.
-
Out of boredom I ran the simulation (does appear virus/trojan free as per Avast and MBAM). Not sure what you are trying to prove here, it just seems like elliptical orbits. The only think that seemed like a black hole was the text, which was mediocre at best.
Also why did you link us to the beta version when the actual one is available?
This simulation does not show any of the special black hole properties at all. I could rename the dots and say its comets and planets orbiting the sun.
EDIT: I found on the site a simulation that is nearly identical to the one you posted, minus the text. Are you sure YOU created this? If you didn't do you at least understand what you sent us?
-
the stars and black hole, no. i did though make every other aspect of it and i was only using the MW7star.gsim file to insure that this website could transfer the file tipe. today i plan on doing the next more advanced version witch includes two 150 sun-like star clusters and in the core of each is ether a BH or WH body. as to the beta version it is because v2.0 cant handle more then 150-200 bodys at once
-
I dont know what Simulation you have or are using but just you made them it doesnt make them right 3rd party should be what you want that way its not bias towards you and i know what you are talking about with the star moving faster at galaxtic cores then further out and you can find it on youtube.
-
what do you guys think of "bubble" universes?
-
in which context? Bubble universes within our own as seen in an episode of ST:TNG? Or as in each universe being a bubble in hyperspace?
-
As in the idea that multiple Big bangs happened in different spots of the "true" universe, not the star trek stuff (unless it is accrete.)
sorry spell check/Google doesn't recognize that last one
-
the true universe what exactly does that mean it sounds to religion like.
But this is starting to sound more like string theory. and so far there is only one big bang in our universe.
-
the true universe what exactly does that mean it sounds to religion like.
But this is starting to sound more like string theory. and so far there is only one big bang in our universe.
no there is the "observable" universe and there is what we don't see or as i said "true" universe
also i have heard of the string theory but don't know it(or i do and just didn't realize it)
-
From the context, I think he's talking about hyperspace.
For anyone that might be unfamiliar with the term/concept: hyperspace is, in many theories, the region that a universe can form within. This is used in both the bubble universe and membrane universe concepts. It is space, but not as we define it.
I personally tend to lean more towards the bubble universe rather than the membrane universe simply because a bubble seems to allow for more flexibilty in formation and therefore the conditions of our big bang as we think we know them to be.
The thing from Star Trek is theoretically possible as long as you use the basis of time and space being a single concept.
-
okey... im not exactly sure if i even know what you talking about.im saying the true universe would be full of big bangs that leed to the universe we know now. so if there are other big bangs then how would one prove it. only way i can think of is earth seeing a mega nova(REEEEALY big supernova) or see tons of stars suddenly appear on one side of the known universe
-
that doesnt make any sense at all.
-
that figures... okey ill try again.
thets say that instead of ONE big bang there where thousands and now as they age they get older and form universes.
now what where to happen is two of these collided?
what would be seen.
i think that we would see is a super nova so powerful that it would instantly bleach the surface white. that or a lot of stars showing up at once
hope that clears it up a little
-
if 2 what collided universes? That is pretty much the theory that the universe itself was created by membranes touching causing a singularity and making the big bang that made every thing in our universe. A universe hitting another universe may not be a good things but if we look at how galaxy hit each other if the universes are simular or identical they would blend together. but if opposite like a antimatter universe the 2 universes would annihillate each other on contact.
-
not exactly. for some reason matter dominates anti-matter by a small percentage. other wise we could not exist due to the fact that the big bang was 50/50 mater/antimatter
-
i think that we would see is a super nova so powerful that it would instantly bleach the surface white.
What? This doesn't even make sense.
Bleaching of materials that you see in everyday life (like with plastic) occurs due to UV light. It causes oxidation within the materials which cause their absorption spectra to change. The same change occurs in many pigments and dyes (compounds that are used to color something else via subtractive color mixing, for example inkjet printers typically use a dye based process to produce the colors (high end ones and laser printers use a pigment based process).
To my knowledge planet surfaces are not generally made out of organic materials that have these properties so I doubt that it would bleach the surface white (though I'm sure many organics would be destroyed due to the huge increase in surface temperature as well as the large amount of ionizing radiation being emitted from the star).
NB: I am not an astrophysicist
-
not exactly. for some reason matter dominates anti-matter by a small percentage. other wise we could not exist due to the fact that the big bang was 50/50 mater/antimatter
your talking about our universe not one that was created in another big bang or parallel to our own. Its possible that the other universe would be filled with anti matter instead of matter the reverse of ours.
-
Its possible that the other universe would be filled with anti matter instead of matter the reverse of ours.
good point
Bleaching of materials that you see in everyday life (like with plastic) occurs due to UV light. It causes oxidation within the materials which cause their absorption spectra to change. The same change occurs in many pigments and dyes (compounds that are used to color something else via subtractive color mixing, for example inkjet printers typically use a dye based process to produce the colors (high end ones and laser printers use a pigment based process).
what i meant was that all life would be effectively destroyed
-
ECC, from what I'm reading, you're talking about bubble theory (in which there are many universes forming and dying in their own little bubbles in hyperspace)
-
hyperspace is what you call the outside of universe, correct?
-
hyperspace is the "thing" within which all possible universes are held according to several thories
-
good. now what do you think would be seen if two of these universes collided?
would it be a peaceful appearance
or violent with Gama rays all over(assuming that it is not some other energy wavelength)
i have another question
because this topic has left its original discussion, why not rename it to space because that is what it has to deal with
(im kidding)
-
I have some theories on universe collisions:
1) Inert Reaction: A case in which the two colliding universes are out of phase with eachother. There is a small chance of seeing things from one in the other, but nothing happens because things that aren't in phase with eachother cannot interact.
2) Catastrophy: A case in which one or both of the universes are destroyed in the collision. This is all dependant upon factors comparable to sub-atomic particle interactions. One such factor has been pointed out by freeza already.
3) Coalsce: A case in which conditions are just right for one universe to be absorbed by the other. This would require both to have physics that allow for it.
4) Oddity: A case in which adsorption occurs. The attached universe might be able to be seen, but it would be like trying to travel through a glass wall.
-
now because i have found info on this subject. i do have another question why would our known universe look like a 3d oval (other then the fact of the MW hides 3+%.)
dose this imply that mabie two big bangs occurred simultaneously next two each other? about 30 billion light years away i think(don't quote me on the numbers)
-
it is a falicy if human perception in the world around us. We are trying to describe a higher dimension object in 3 dimentional terms.
-
I think perhaps two "uni"-verses is a bit misleading in what you seem to be getting at. From what I understand of what you're saying, it sounds like what if two big bangs happen in the same universe, but in very different places (and at possibly different times). The effects of each bang would be expanding outward at the speed of light (assuming nothing travels faster than this). Some people consider the size of the universe to be the sphere with radius equal to the age of the universe times the speed of light. By that definition though, the universe is expanding. (Into what?)
Now, if instead, we consider the universe to be all possible space that the effects of the big bang can spread into, rather than the area currently affected (due to radiation or matter passing through), it would seem possible that there is more than one point at which a big bang could occur. Since they start off in separate locations, there is some minimum amount of time before they would be able to "see" each other (in terms of radiation or matter from one interacting with the radiation or matter from the other). If this minimum amount of time has not elapsed, then you, being in one of these big bang affected areas, would not be able to observe or detect the existance of the other, because nothing (not even light) would have had the time to travel far enough. Now what happens when enough time elapses so that their sphere of influences begins to intersect?
I believe that's what the question was.
I think extra stars would just sort of pop into "sight", like someone turning on a light. Since the distance is so great, I suspect they would be so dim that you'd have trouble seeing them, and the increase in background radiation would be extremely minor. At least, assuming both big bang points are stationary. If one is moving in relation to another, than perhaps a Doppler effect would create a big flash of light/radiation, much like a sonic boom. But for that to happen, one would have to be moving close to the speed of light in relation to the other.
-
well first off if two big bangs happened near each other you have to remember if there explosion then they might just blow each other out. But first it would have to be possible for there to be two of them near each other. Also it leads you back to the whole universe collision would the big bangs have the same composition or physics to them.
Now ok if two of them has the exact same identical exsistance. then its likely they would merge making a universe the looks different according to the scans of radiation. it would have more a dumb bell shape then a eliptical.
also Hooman tachyons are suppose to be fast as light or faster. They have not been proven to exsist yet tho.
-
i really should draw some diagrams for this subject
hooman you are correct about the question
i still wonder tho how an object containing all the known mass at 1D (single point) could become the universe as we know it with out extreme circumstances. circumstances beyond the power of the laws of science (too many to name)
edit: yes dumbbell. i just couldn't think of the name
-
so what you want to know is our theories on what would happen if 2 universes collided?
i believe that unless the laws where PERFECTLY aligned, nothing would happen...
"something" would prevent miss-aligning rules from merging and so on...
and if they did merge, it would be like uhhhhh.... some bio term i'll get to it later...
[EDIT]apparently i can't find it quickly enough and not being a bio major i don't know, just mentally use reverse mitosis[/EDIT]
-
that kinda makes sense.
edit: you mean like germs, but in reverse, right? if so that makes perfect sense.
also if the center of the big bang was a traveling object, wouldent that cause the universal structure to end up "egg" shaped?
-
first you would have to prove it was moving because before the singularity exploded into the big bang there was nothing. So how would it be moving. And a moving explosive like a missile for instance will make a shape where the other side of the explosion is larger then the trailing side. But even then you would have to be moving pretty fast for that to happen on a noticable scale.
-
well if it was moving it would give the shape described in my last post. good.
now do you think it is possible that the big bang shelled. (think of an onion.) or mabie a better description is the singularity exploded then most of the matter (not all) collapsed back to the original singularity state an then repeated that sequence multiple times. the end result would be a universe that resembles a onion(or tree rings almost exactly)
-
I'm no expert in Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics, or any other big-fancy title science fields, however it seems that you are asking questions that there is no finite answer too with our current knowledge of the Universe, in fact, I'm pretty sure we don't even have much information about our own galaxy.
However it does spark interesting conversation, and the what-if theories and scenarios intrigue me so I'll attempt to answer you last question if I understand it correctly.
If I understand correctly, you're asking what would be the resulting universe if a Big-Bang Explosion where to fire then collapse, fire then collapse, rinse and repeat, right?
I'm not entirely sure that's possible, an explosion on the scale of the big-bang is almost unimaginably powerful. Sure it can be roughly estimated through mathematics and so-forth, but nobody has ever experienced such a large scale display of force, and if one did occur I doubt they, or anyone would live to talk about it.
My point is... the big bang probably couldn't generate enough reverse pull to collapse back onto itself due to the force of the explosion in the first place.
I could, however, be entirely mistaken.
Now, let's say it where possible...
Then the first explosion would no doubt fire matter/radiation from the core mass, causing a 'ring.' After this burst It would also take time to re-collapse into a singularity, thus giving a small amount of time for the first release of matter to travel some distance. Now... the second explosion would occur, creating a gap space void of material. If this where to continue the universe would look somewhat like the age lines of a tree.
If this DID happen, we could possibly estimate the true age of the universe by counting the lines. (A bit of humor there. :D)
-
it would be quite possible to have this occur. with that much mass in such a small area it would constantly be pulled in and when it reaches the speed of light inside of the newly created singularity it will (so I've been told) turn into pure energy allowing it to have no (known) mass. this leads to the singularity evaporating. now assuming that this energy can revert back to matter it will gain mass, slow down, and come back to the original point of origin.
sorry but i got sidetracked and will possibly come back to this post later
-
Eve-
It would be quite possible to have this occur.
I assume you are referring to my first explanation explaining my belief of it not being able to compress after the first initial blast, it's not really clear as to what you are referring to from my post, if you could please clear it up that would be very helpful. :)
...with that much mass in such a small area it would constantly be pulled in and when it reaches the speed of light inside of the newly created singularity it will (so I've been told) turn into pure energy allowing it to have no (known) mass.
Again, I'm having a bit of difficulty following what part of my post you are responding too, so if I'm wrong just clear it up. I believe you are talking about the collapse still so I will respond under that assumption.
I was referring to the ability of the "Bang" to pull back after it's initial explosion, this explanation doesn't explain how the matter would be drawn back into another black hole, but merely re-states what a black-hole theoretically is inside.
...this leads to the singularity evaporating.
If the explosion did occur and somehow manage to recoil a large amount of mass back into the core of the explosion's origin (In this case, a black hole I assume), then if it evaporates a second explosion couldn't occur because the black hole deteriorates rather than explodes again, thus explaining a completely different scenario than the one I was trying to explain.
now assuming that this energy can revert back to matter it will gain mass, slow down, and come back to the original point of origin.
Referring back to the laws posted by CK9 earlier in this thread, it would be impossible for this energy to revert back into matter, as the laws of physics state that matter can turn into energy, but not vice versa. [Though, as I stated I'm no expert and could be completely wrong here.]
Anyway, I think we are on a completely different page here.
-
and yet the laws have been rewritten multiple times in history.
okey enough theory. i honestly have no clue on this one. what would be causing Jupiter to have more energy output then solar input.
-
The super-conductive Hydrogen core.
-
can you explain.
-
Most abundant element in the universe: Hydrogen
Most likely core of a gas giant: Hydrogen
What happens to hydrogen at that high of pressure: super-conductive liquid form (theoretically, heh)
-
Some believe that if a significant impact where to hit Jupiter it would ignite that core, turning it basically into a small sun, as well. There is a whole conspiracy theory around the black spot on Jupiter, and how NASA dropped a satellite onto the planet and sort of pulled a "Oops, let's not talk about it" deal, because if it did happen, and would have caused enough of an impact to ignite the planet, they would have been in big trouble.
-
although in most theories i have read, the core of Jupiter is a diamond? the carbon and other elements from meteors fell into the center and compressed into the diamond...
-
I don't think that would work. The ammount of heat needed in combination with the pressure would have ignited the atmosphere
-
i knew some where in this discussion a conspiracy would be mentioned! LOL.
so jupiter because it has apparently achieved fusion at it's core doesn't that make it classified as a sun. and the moons>planets/dwarf-planets
-
Not unless Pluto is still a planet :P
Jupiter has not achieved fusion, but it is sometimes classified as a 'brown dwarf' or a failed star. Maybe if we force neptune and uranus into jupiter it will become massive enough to become a second star. Then we would be like the majority of solar systems out there, lol
-
no it takes .8 or .75 solar masses before a star can be achieved(that is what i was taught)
20 more Jupiters are needed for that
-
first off probes from earth have no mass in comparison to the amount needed to cause fusion in its core. you need less then 2 solar masses to make a star.
1 jupiter = 0.000954638698 solar mass
your going to need to toss alot into it.
-
What if I threw in the Kuiper belt and Saturn along with those?
-
that wouldn't do it
there is not enough mass in the solar system to have two suns (excludes current sun)
-
So then let's merge Jupiter into the Sun and make a Super Sun.
-
well you need it to be more hydrogen and helium then any thing else. solids wouldnt help that much tho they have a higher mass. but just going on mass alone you would probably need all the giant planets and the asteroid belt together to get enough for the proto star which is less then 2 solar masses.
If jupiter got close to the sun it would actually get bigger hehe.
-
there is NOT a lot of mass in the asteroid bet to make even a moon sized planet. so that is unlikely. but if you check Jupiter's orbit at the L4 and L5 points you may be surprised
-
first off probes from earth have no mass in comparison to the amount needed to cause fusion in its core. you need less then 2 solar masses to make a star.
1 jupiter = 0.000954638698 solar mass
your going to need to toss alot into it.
there is NOT a lot of mass in the asteroid bet to make even a moon sized planet. so that is unlikely. but if you check Jupiter's orbit at the L4 and L5 points you may be surprised
Considering as how there are some asteroids in the belt that are classified as dwarf planets, I think you are mistaken on this fact.
The satellite dropped contained large amounts of uranium. That was why there was so much hype about it.
-
thy are only classified as dwarf planets because of the fact they have enough mass to pull them self's into a round shape.
-
the thing about people is they dont know the difference between fission and fusion.
I used to think exploding a nuclear device in jupiter would make a star for a short time. but that is fission not fusion. just a little tib bit about why people thought the uranium would set off a star fusion event hehe.
-
freeza, there is more than one type of nuke. One of the nukes dropped on Japan was a fusion bomb, the other a fission bomb. But yea, neither would work :P
-
Umm, I believe they were both fission bombs. One was uranium, the other plutonium. Both those atoms are heavy and release energy when split. The lighter atoms, such as hydrogen release energy when they fuse. If you've ever seen a graph of nuclear binding energy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html) you'll see that iron is the most nuclear stable element, with atoms lighter than iron releasing energy during fusion (and hence taking energy to split), and atome heavier than iron releasing energy during fission (and hence taking energy to fuse).
At any rate, I believe this to be possibly irrelevant to the question of igniting Jupiter. Since Jupiter is mostly light elements, it would be powered by nuclear fusion. From what I understand it takes heat and pressure to ignite such a reaction, and the heat released by the reaction would probably be able to maintain it provided the pressure remains sufficient and the fuel source doesn't run out. As Jupiter has no shortage of fuel, and I believe the heat from either type of nuclear device could be sufficient, I suspect pressure would be the major factor. Jupiter certainly is big, with lots of gravity, and I assume lots of pressure, but I'm not sure it's enough. After all, it hasn't ignited already. Also, the pressure would be greatest at the core, and I expect any probes crashing into Jupiter would burn up long before reaching the core, somewhere in the upper atmosphere where pressure isn't as great.
Now, if a probe was crashing into a giant planet made of uranium, which for some reason was significantly pure, despite natural tendencies, I suppose it might matter if the probe died a firey death or a firey/neutron death. In which case the nature of the reaction might matter. Although, both fusion and fission reactions can release neutrons, from what I've read. But, this case of a planet of fissile uranium (or plutonium) would seem to be far less likely. Actually, the more I think about it, the more ludicrous it's starting to sound. Especially since the density of a planet wouldn't be uniform, and density matters here for whether the reaction is spontaneous or not. Again, if the core hasn't already ignited, then the surface probably isn't anywhere near as dense as needed to sustain a reaction. Further, the heavier elements would probably end up in the core, making uranium an unlikely crust. At best you'd probably be talking about a small asteriod chunk of uranium, which wouldn't have enough gravity to hold itself together after igniting.
In summary, from what little I know of nuclear chemsitry and the formation of stars, I somehow doubt we'd be igniting any gas giants by accident, and probably not even if we tried. Mind you, it would be cool to try it and see (in someone else's solar system).
-
Hooman, You have a way with blowing minds. -chuckle- A really enjoyable read.
Creating a second star would look pretty awesome, and probably be quite helpful in understanding the planets more. Though, as you said, in someone else's solar system as I imagine igniting any of our gas giants would cause drastic changes to Earth, and not necessarily good ones.
Anyway, here is the link where I found the information about the black spot on Jupiter, and it's accident.: Did NASA accidentally "Nuke" Jupiter?" (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_luciferproject06.htm)
-
Wow.... this brings memories... has anyone read the book 2001 a Space Odyssey?
in the sequels Jupiter gets ignited...
-
Umm, I believe they were both fission bombs.
"Little Boy" was a fusion bomb, "Fat Man" was a fission bomb. Unfortunately, wiki has the best image I'm seeing to display this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Components.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png)
The total uranium mass was in two parts, and detonation was caused by forcing these parts to fuse together via small explosives at the back of the bomb.
But yea, it's futile discussing the idea of a new sun born from Jupiter...besides, some scientists believe we already are a binary system to to the precision in the frequency of extinction-level events.
-
"Little Boy" was a fusion bomb, "Fat Man" was a fission bomb.
They were both fission bombs. The "Little Boy" used Uranium 235 with a gun type trigger, where a conventional explosive forced a hollowed uranium mass onto a target unranium spike to achieve critial mass. The "Fat Man" used a Plutonium core with surrounding conventional explosives to produce an implosion trigger which compacted the core to critical mass. I think you may be confusing the trigger mechanism with the nature of the nuclear reaction.
In the gun type device, two separate pieces of Uranium were forced together, which achieved critical mass, causing the uranium atoms to split.
The first fusion bomb wasn't tested until around 1952, after the war.
-
hmmm....then my 20th century history professor needs to be re-educated, heh
-
Yes there are fusion bombs but they are initiated with a fission reaction first. So it may yet be possible to start a fusion reaction in jupiter with a hydrogen bomb or even a fission bomb.
-
even if Jupiter WAS set aflame earth wouldn't feel a thing. for one Jupiter is almost 1 AU away. for another Jupiter would be dimmer then ANY other known star. dimmer then even a red dwarf.
on another note
i heard that Jupiter has a solid surface the size of earth. is there ANY confirmation on this?