Lbm Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Its a really big dyson... That theory just sucks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted August 8, 2008 Author Share Posted August 8, 2008 back at school I am sure my science teacher always used to say that at the centre of a black hole was the singularity ... which had infinite mass (first thing.... how can something have infinite mass? - if other things exist such as us and our sun etc..... these are not inside a black hole) And then I read on the interweb that Cern is going to be experimenting on producing tiny black holes. Well if a black hole has infinite mass etc. would these tiny black holes suck the centre of the earth into them ?? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 And then I read on the interweb that Cern is going to be experimenting on producing tiny black holes. Well if a black hole has infinite mass etc. would these tiny black holes suck the centre of the earth into them ?? Just a thought. Nope: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7468966.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 A black hole draws everythng eventually to a singularity When science talks about heavy weight stars its always mass not physical size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 I don't think Cern will be making any black holes, they're attempting to create a 'God Particle', which is believed to be one of the first particles in existance a few seconds after the big bang (Nothing to do with religion)... Some people say that it'll create a huge black hole and wipe us all out, but I don't think that'll happen, one of the lasses at work went there 'on Holiday' ( :S wtf?) and she's said there's plenty of fire extinguishers there to keep us all safe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Rendar Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Just to throw in my 2p worth ('cause I find this stuff fascinating), mass and dimensions will typically go hand in hand as far as a star is concerned. A star is a massive fusion reactor, and it is the heat generated from fusion which causes the gases to expand from the centre. The massive gravitational pull from the core counterbalances the expansion, and this dictates the size. Hence a 'big' star is both larger and will have more mass. This of course assumes we're comparing stars in the same stage of their 'lifecycle'. For example, when the Sun finally kicks the bucket, it will hugely expand as the core runs out of hydrogen and starts fusing helium, causing rapid contraction of the core itself. At the same time, the outer layers will continue hydrogen fusion and will rapidly escape from the core, forming a red giant. (And this will most likely engulf the inner planets, including us!) Eventually the helium will also run out, and the star will slowly collapse to be a white dwarf, a pitiful remnant of what it once was. One school of thought is that a black hole sucks on all matter passed the event horizon and then sprays it out in a geyser in the form of a white hole somewhere along the space/time contiuum. Now this is mind-bending stuff. I've always wondered, given that nothing (including light) can escape from the event horizon, how then can there be a gravitational field outside the event horizon? If we assume wave/particle duality, then in theory, gravitons can't escape either. But what if tachyons are actually spewed on the other side of the event horizon and then manifest themselves as other particules (e.g. gravitons) as they lose energy? Now I fear I may be talking rubbish. I always remember the opening line my quantum physics lecturer said as he walked into the lecture theatre for the first time... "Why doesn't this overhead projector spontaneously turn into an undergraduate?" Of course, the answer is so obvious it's easy to miss it, but it was an intriguing question, and I've loved the subject ever since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdavies Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Mathematical anomaly backed up by wobbles observed by various telescopic methods no? (similar to how planets are sometimes discovered) Love the dramatic romantic theories behind it all though - impossible to prove/disprove with a lot of today's technology, just attempting to match patterns to theories - awesome reading a lot of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Today's black hole is to learn that black holes aren't really black at all. They emit radiation from the even horizon as they gradually evaporate - seriously (at least as the theories predict anyway) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcol Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 mike tysons arse:d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 mike tysons arse:d Go for it, you're on your own there though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.