Author Topic: Black Holes (Read 33056 times)

Hidiot · « **Reply #50 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:52:14 AM »

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

CK9 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:58:44 AM »

how about everyone actually starts making an effort to spell correctly instead of being lazy about it and making excuses >.<

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #52 on:** May 18, 2010, 12:00:31 PM »

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

CK9 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 18, 2010, 01:08:25 PM »

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.

Moley · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:42:02 PM »

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

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2010, 09:20:38 PM »

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

Sirbomber · « **Reply #56 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:21:46 PM »

Quote

/rant

Just because you include "rant" somewhere in your post doesn't mean it's not stupid.

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

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?

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #57 on:** May 19, 2010, 05:06:47 AM »

because the only possibility of a known one has only existed at the beginning of time "BIG BANG THEORY"

Moley · « **Reply #58 on:** May 19, 2010, 06:06:19 AM »

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...

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #59 on:** May 19, 2010, 07:16:57 AM »

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

CK9 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 19, 2010, 09:41:24 AM »

*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...

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #61 on:** May 19, 2010, 10:09:33 AM »

or it could be mascerading as a star of any luminosity
sorry bout spelling

Freeza-CII · « **Reply #62 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:55:30 PM »

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.

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #63 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:21:32 PM »

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

CK9 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 19, 2010, 08:12:21 PM »

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.

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #65 on:** May 20, 2010, 05:04:30 AM »

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.

CK9 · « **Reply #66 on:** May 20, 2010, 09:31:06 AM »

no, they are blackholes. Their gravity is the proof. By its originating definition, a whitehole cannot exist.

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #67 on:** May 20, 2010, 12:28:26 PM »

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

CK9 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 20, 2010, 03:35:43 PM »

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.

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #69 on:** May 20, 2010, 03:47:26 PM »

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)

CK9 · « **Reply #70 on:** May 20, 2010, 08:24:09 PM »

The concept of a white hole violates the first law of thermodynamics. You break the law, you get punished!

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #71 on:** May 20, 2010, 08:27:21 PM »

how so... :unsure:
better yet post all the laws

CK9 · « **Reply #72 on:** May 20, 2010, 09:37:01 PM »

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.

evecolonycamander · « **Reply #73 on:** May 21, 2010, 04:58:48 AM »

so what dose a WH brake. im not seeing it.

Hidiot · « **Reply #74 on:** May 21, 2010, 07:07:09 AM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Black Holes (Read 33056 times)