Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
References And Thinking For One's Self

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Greg Armel/">Greg Armel on July 8, 1999 13:46:21 UTC

Steven Hawkings has proposed that due to the rotational velocity maintained by a singularity upon its transition from stellar mass to a black-hole, the Schwartzchild Radius is Fuzzy, that is, oscillating so that mass once inescapably bound for the singularity may suddenly find itself free. He had hopes for the thought of being able to find and capture a black-hole in order to provide for an inexaustable energy source, as we could throw our trash into a black-hole and benefit by retrieving the x-ray energy generated by its acceleration. So He proposed that during the primordial stages of the Big-Bang, conditions would have existed to promote the development of primordial or mini-black-holes, but upon further consideration he realized that due to their fuzziness, all of these would have evaporated by now. Now, I have the greatest respect for Steven, but this brings several questions to mind, which I am sure our newly residing oracle of all scientific knowledge will be able to answer for me. First, how would the mass from the singularity get to the Fuzzy Schwartzchild Radius in order to be evaporated, since it is mathematically no longer bound by the physics of this Universe, and its own gravational collapse would forbid it? Secondly, since the gravitational well of a black-hole once established, is forevermore, why wouldn't it still be feasible to look for mini-black holes, even if it was so fuzzy as to radiate its mass? In the primordial universe wouldn't such a gravitational field tend to collect more then it could radiate? Now Lee, I know you know this is a scientific forum, these are very precise questions, and everybody's watching, so please answer the questions before lapsing into any emotional hissy fits and Lee, references please! :o)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 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