Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|Re: References And Thinking For One's Self
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Lee on July 8, 1999 19:17:03 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)
Lee: Well Greg, It looked like you were actually ready to engage in some meaningful conversation by pointing out a very good example of how Quantum Theory has overlapped into Astronomy.
But alas, in the very last sentence you once again lapse into this childish emotional state I have come to expect of you. You ask for references on a point but provide none yourself for the original point you try to make in the first place. Your usual double standard thinking.
You are at least predictible if not much else.
And so is Russ for that matter. If you check the references I gave early on in my participation here you will see that he has performed exactly as I predicted he would even unto the questions he has asked.
You seem to have some valid questions on the other hand, but a nasty habit of hanging your ego on your sleeve when you ask them. Perhaps you'll get some better feedback from folks when you learn to stop initiating the conversation with proclamations of self agrandizement and pomposity.
As for me, this is my last post here. When I press the 'submit' button for this message I'm outa here to more realistic territories.
I'm going over to another site where several of the true thinkers here have migrated to, so they don't have to put up with the childish rantings of people like yourself, or the absolute foolish ignorance of folks like Russ who CHOOSE to remain ignorant.
Have a nice day!
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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