Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: The Theory Of Singularities
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Thed/">Thed on June 2, 1998 02:26:10 UTC
: As i understand it, matter, time, energy are :all pulled past the event horision into the :black hole by the gravity field surrounding the :singularity at the base of the vortex of the :black hole .
Matter and energy are certainly "eaten" but I am not sure about Time. As Human I Scientist asked, what is time? My take is that nothing can destroy time, remove it or stop it. Frankly Physics has nothing to say about WHAT time is, only how it behaves in some circumstances.
No one even knows if singularities are real or not. The maths say a singularity exists. Physicists deal with the real world though and generally believe singularities do not exist. note I say believe and not "have proven", no one has ever seen a singulrity and no models exist that explain them so they may exist, or not.
:What i would like to understand is what is :happening to all the energy.
So would a lot of theoreticians. As far as I know the energy simply get trapped inside the event horizon. Beyond that we can not say as known physics falls apart inside the event horizon.
:I always understood that for every action there :is an equal and oppisite reaction.
Different principle. If you hit a brick wall the brick wall hits you back as hard. If a brick falls from a height it gains energy as potential energy is converted to kinetic. This does not mean that somewhere else a brick moves up as kinetic energy is transfered to potential. when the brick hits the ground the kinetic energy is transformed into an impulse, sound, heat and possibly light. By the "equal and opposite reactions" principle the ground then hits the brick and depending on elasticity the brick may be flung up again. To proove my point, drop a brick on concrete and then on a trampoline and spot the difference.
:If the black hole is eating whole galaxies that :is a tremendous amount of energy to just :dissapear and never take into account. is there :a point that a black hole can not hold in the :energy it has engulfed.
It is a lot of energy and there is no hint that there is a limit to how much a black hole can hold. Objects have been detected with millions of solar masses but with diameters thought to be only a few hundred kilometers in diameter. Humungous black holes indeed.
: I wonder if the jets we see in some of the :black holes is a safty release of some kind. it :would seem to fit.Well at least to me it does.
The jets are not well understood (by me) I think they are a result of the material spiralling through the accretion disk, gaining energy which causes the material to ionise which causes magnetic fields which in turn accelerates the ions and spite then out at the magnetic poles of the black holes accretion disk.
The only known way a black hole looses mass is through Hawking Radiation.
:If you have a diffrent opinion i would love to :here.
Not an opinion, what I remember from text books and latest research.
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins