Mammoth black holes push universe to its doom

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

I haven't see that yet.

I was waiting for someone to debunk Hawking Radiation. It never made a lick of sense to me, seems to backwards for everything else we know about black holes. Granted, I don't have a degree in astronomy or physics or similar, but I enjoy researching the stuff I can understand. I could never figure out how Hawking Radiation ever made sense to anyone who even understands the material.

The key to understanding it is that the radiation comes from a little bit outside the blackhole and not from within the black hole itself.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

I haven't see that yet.

I was waiting for someone to debunk Hawking Radiation. It never made a lick of sense to me, seems to backwards for everything else we know about black holes. Granted, I don't have a degree in astronomy or physics or similar, but I enjoy researching the stuff I can understand. I could never figure out how Hawking Radiation ever made sense to anyone who even understands the material.

The key to understanding it is that the radiation comes from a little bit outside the blackhole and not from within the black hole itself.

What doesn't make sense is how that implies the black hole will shrink/evaporate over time.

If it comes from just outside the event horizon, which can make sense that objects could escape from the stable orbit positions, since objects can orbit a black hole just like any other stellar body... but if it's radiation from the black hole, it doesn't matter where it appears from, it's implying it's leaving the black hole itself still, correct? And once mass is considered to be past the event horizon, there is absolutely no escaping, since nothing can break the black hole's hold once inside the event horizon. Thus, no matter could evaporate from the black hole itself... yes?

Thus, wouldn't Hawking Radiation just be the stellar gasses ejecting from the polar regions, which would consist of material entirely outside the event horizon? Which would translate to, the black hole never loses material, and in the end only continues to gain mass?

A lot of mass IS going to be wrapped around the black hole outside the event horizon, and when colliding with the magnetic field the stellar masses orbiting the body will be subjected to a lot, especially with a magnetic field as strong as a black hole's.

The way I look at it, it's like the sun's electromagnetic radiation that gets flung at Earth, but the difference being that radiation is actually being shot out of the sun. The radiation from the black hole likely only originates from the polar regions and from stellar gasses orbiting outside of the event horizon and interacting with the magnetic fields at the poles.

Also something I just thought of... is Hawking Radiation at all related to the stellar jets seen at the poles of black holes? The way I read it, they are entirely different, and Hawking Radiation was supposed to be a way of solving entropy calculations. I feel it's just an incorrect variable based around a formula that is based around incomplete science. We just don't know enough to truly figure these things out at the moment, and I think Hawking Radiation is just a short term answer on the way to really learning the truth, a truth that should dispel any notion of Hawking Radiation as it exists today, if I'm understanding the real Hawking Radiation in any way whatsoever.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: FoBoT
how long is 10^102 years ? quite a long time?

I tried to see how many zeros it is, but my calculator refused and just gave me the finger.

It's 102 zeros...

 

[Regs]

Do they have two very large husks?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: FoBoT
how long is 10^102 years ? quite a long time?

I tried to see how many zeros it is, but my calculator refused and just gave me the finger.

It's 102 zeros...

:laugh:

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Also something I just thought of... is Hawking Radiation at all related to the stellar jets seen at the poles of black holes? The way I read it, they are entirely different, and Hawking Radiation was supposed to be a way of solving entropy calculations. I feel it's just an incorrect variable based around a formula that is based around incomplete science. We just don't know enough to truly figure these things out at the moment, and I think Hawking Radiation is just a short term answer on the way to really learning the truth, a truth that should dispel any notion of Hawking Radiation as it exists today, if I'm understanding the real Hawking Radiation in any way whatsoever.

Scientific method? We got to start some where as it's only a scientific hypothesis in the first place. Math only isolates variables so we can use logic of deduction as we progress through the scientific method to come up with a proper confirmation.

Granted, some times a hypothesis can become pop culture very quickly (global warming).

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

I haven't see that yet.

I was waiting for someone to debunk Hawking Radiation. It never made a lick of sense to me, seems to backwards for everything else we know about black holes. Granted, I don't have a degree in astronomy or physics or similar, but I enjoy researching the stuff I can understand. I could never figure out how Hawking Radiation ever made sense to anyone who even understands the material.

The key to understanding it is that the radiation comes from a little bit outside the blackhole and not from within the black hole itself.

What doesn't make sense is how that implies the black hole will shrink/evaporate over time.

If it comes from just outside the event horizon, which can make sense that objects could escape from the stable orbit positions, since objects can orbit a black hole just like any other stellar body... but if it's radiation from the black hole, it doesn't matter where it appears from, it's implying it's leaving the black hole itself still, correct? And once mass is considered to be past the event horizon, there is absolutely no escaping, since nothing can break the black hole's hold once inside the event horizon. Thus, no matter could evaporate from the black hole itself... yes?

Thus, wouldn't Hawking Radiation just be the stellar gasses ejecting from the polar regions, which would consist of material entirely outside the event horizon? Which would translate to, the black hole never loses material, and in the end only continues to gain mass?

A lot of mass IS going to be wrapped around the black hole outside the event horizon, and when colliding with the magnetic field the stellar masses orbiting the body will be subjected to a lot, especially with a magnetic field as strong as a black hole's.

The way I look at it, it's like the sun's electromagnetic radiation that gets flung at Earth, but the difference being that radiation is actually being shot out of the sun. The radiation from the black hole likely only originates from the polar regions and from stellar gasses orbiting outside of the event horizon and interacting with the magnetic fields at the poles.

Also something I just thought of... is Hawking Radiation at all related to the stellar jets seen at the poles of black holes? The way I read it, they are entirely different, and Hawking Radiation was supposed to be a way of solving entropy calculations. I feel it's just an incorrect variable based around a formula that is based around incomplete science. We just don't know enough to truly figure these things out at the moment, and I think Hawking Radiation is just a short term answer on the way to really learning the truth, a truth that should dispel any notion of Hawking Radiation as it exists today, if I'm understanding the real Hawking Radiation in any way whatsoever.

Start with a zero break it into +1 and -1. The gravity of a black hole kinda sorta does this. Well not really, but

The -1 (antimatter) gets pulled into the black hole, the +1 (matter) leaves.

The matter that leaves is the Hawking radiation. The antimatter then interacts with (annihilates) the matter in the black hole, reducing the mass of the black hole.

 

[iCyborg]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: FoBoT
how long is 10^102 years ? quite a long time?

I tried to see how many zeros it is, but my calculator refused and just gave me the finger.

It's 102 zeros...

:laugh:

yes, calculating the number of zeros in 10^n can be very tricky for large n

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Stick with astrology.

Hey, I was high. And i was fucking my woman when the science channel show was on.

 

[meltdown75]

:music: supermassive black hooooole :music:

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

I haven't see that yet.

I was waiting for someone to debunk Hawking Radiation. It never made a lick of sense to me, seems to backwards for everything else we know about black holes. Granted, I don't have a degree in astronomy or physics or similar, but I enjoy researching the stuff I can understand. I could never figure out how Hawking Radiation ever made sense to anyone who even understands the material.

The key to understanding it is that the radiation comes from a little bit outside the blackhole and not from within the black hole itself.

What doesn't make sense is how that implies the black hole will shrink/evaporate over time.

If it comes from just outside the event horizon, which can make sense that objects could escape from the stable orbit positions, since objects can orbit a black hole just like any other stellar body... but if it's radiation from the black hole, it doesn't matter where it appears from, it's implying it's leaving the black hole itself still, correct? And once mass is considered to be past the event horizon, there is absolutely no escaping, since nothing can break the black hole's hold once inside the event horizon. Thus, no matter could evaporate from the black hole itself... yes?

Thus, wouldn't Hawking Radiation just be the stellar gasses ejecting from the polar regions, which would consist of material entirely outside the event horizon? Which would translate to, the black hole never loses material, and in the end only continues to gain mass?

A lot of mass IS going to be wrapped around the black hole outside the event horizon, and when colliding with the magnetic field the stellar masses orbiting the body will be subjected to a lot, especially with a magnetic field as strong as a black hole's.

The way I look at it, it's like the sun's electromagnetic radiation that gets flung at Earth, but the difference being that radiation is actually being shot out of the sun. The radiation from the black hole likely only originates from the polar regions and from stellar gasses orbiting outside of the event horizon and interacting with the magnetic fields at the poles.

Also something I just thought of... is Hawking Radiation at all related to the stellar jets seen at the poles of black holes? The way I read it, they are entirely different, and Hawking Radiation was supposed to be a way of solving entropy calculations. I feel it's just an incorrect variable based around a formula that is based around incomplete science. We just don't know enough to truly figure these things out at the moment, and I think Hawking Radiation is just a short term answer on the way to really learning the truth, a truth that should dispel any notion of Hawking Radiation as it exists today, if I'm understanding the real Hawking Radiation in any way whatsoever.

Start with a zero break it into +1 and -1. The gravity of a black hole kinda sorta does this. Well not really, but

The -1 (antimatter) gets pulled into the black hole, the +1 (matter) leaves.

The matter that leaves is the Hawking radiation. The antimatter then interacts with (annihilates) the matter in the black hole, reducing the mass of the black hole.

Well now that makes no sense.

If it constantly did that, there would be no matter in the black hole, only antimatter. And from what I understand, that's definitely not the case.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
:music: supermassive black hooooole :music:

:music: black hole sun, won't you come :music:

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: meltdown75
:music: supermassive black hooooole :music:

:music: black hole sun, won't you come :music:

:music: i see a red hole and i want it painted black :music:

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: FoBoT
how long is 10^102 years ? quite a long time?

I tried to see how many zeros it is, but my calculator refused and just gave me the finger.

Maybe it was just pissed at you for wasting it's time?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Junk. What a stupid article.

why?? because it doesn't support accepted consensus among astrophysical balloon heads?

No, because the article is stupid. The premise is cool, but its a bad read.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: geno
I call it a Hawking Hole

Inverse ass raping the universe?

 

[iCyborg]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Start with a zero break it into +1 and -1. The gravity of a black hole kinda sorta does this. Well not really, but

The -1 (antimatter) gets pulled into the black hole, the +1 (matter) leaves.

The matter that leaves is the Hawking radiation. The antimatter then interacts with (annihilates) the matter in the black hole, reducing the mass of the black hole.

Well now that makes no sense.

If it constantly did that, there would be no matter in the black hole, only antimatter. And from what I understand, that's definitely not the case.

Sometimes the matter gets away, sometimes antimatter. It's not like it's always only matter.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

No. Just.... no.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: nerp
YOu know hawking doesn't believe that black holes will evaporate anymore, right? Susskind debunked it and Hawking accepted Susskind's explanation.

I haven't see that yet.

I was waiting for someone to debunk Hawking Radiation. It never made a lick of sense to me, seems to backwards for everything else we know about black holes. Granted, I don't have a degree in astronomy or physics or similar, but I enjoy researching the stuff I can understand. I could never figure out how Hawking Radiation ever made sense to anyone who even understands the material.

The key to understanding it is that the radiation comes from a little bit outside the blackhole and not from within the black hole itself.

What doesn't make sense is how that implies the black hole will shrink/evaporate over time.

If it comes from just outside the event horizon, which can make sense that objects could escape from the stable orbit positions, since objects can orbit a black hole just like any other stellar body... but if it's radiation from the black hole, it doesn't matter where it appears from, it's implying it's leaving the black hole itself still, correct? And once mass is considered to be past the event horizon, there is absolutely no escaping, since nothing can break the black hole's hold once inside the event horizon. Thus, no matter could evaporate from the black hole itself... yes?

Thus, wouldn't Hawking Radiation just be the stellar gasses ejecting from the polar regions, which would consist of material entirely outside the event horizon? Which would translate to, the black hole never loses material, and in the end only continues to gain mass?

A lot of mass IS going to be wrapped around the black hole outside the event horizon, and when colliding with the magnetic field the stellar masses orbiting the body will be subjected to a lot, especially with a magnetic field as strong as a black hole's.

The way I look at it, it's like the sun's electromagnetic radiation that gets flung at Earth, but the difference being that radiation is actually being shot out of the sun. The radiation from the black hole likely only originates from the polar regions and from stellar gasses orbiting outside of the event horizon and interacting with the magnetic fields at the poles.

Also something I just thought of... is Hawking Radiation at all related to the stellar jets seen at the poles of black holes? The way I read it, they are entirely different, and Hawking Radiation was supposed to be a way of solving entropy calculations. I feel it's just an incorrect variable based around a formula that is based around incomplete science. We just don't know enough to truly figure these things out at the moment, and I think Hawking Radiation is just a short term answer on the way to really learning the truth, a truth that should dispel any notion of Hawking Radiation as it exists today, if I'm understanding the real Hawking Radiation in any way whatsoever.

Start with a zero break it into +1 and -1. The gravity of a black hole kinda sorta does this. Well not really, but

The -1 (antimatter) gets pulled into the black hole, the +1 (matter) leaves.

The matter that leaves is the Hawking radiation. The antimatter then interacts with (annihilates) the matter in the black hole, reducing the mass of the black hole.

Well now that makes no sense.

If it constantly did that, there would be no matter in the black hole, only antimatter. And from what I understand, that's definitely not the case.

Holy misunderstanding batman! The anti-matter annihilates with some matter in the black hole. Assuming the black hole starts as a matter black hole (as opposed to an anti matter one) then it can only ever have more matter than anti-matter by this mechanism.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Junk. What a stupid article.

why?? because it doesn't support accepted consensus among astrophysical balloon heads?

No, because the article is stupid. The premise is cool, but its a bad read.

So it isn't time to party until we get destroyed by giant black holes?


...


That sounded dirty.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Junk. What a stupid article.

why?? because it doesn't support accepted consensus among astrophysical balloon heads?

Another inane post by the resident science-hating dropout loser.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Good, this universe has been a complete failure. Big Crash and start all over again, better luck next time.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
STOP UNIVERSAL WARMING!!!

Universal climate change...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
how long is 10^102 years ? quite a long time?

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years