black hole

[neoreef]

Hawking Says He Was Wrong About Black Holes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 21, 2004
Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking: How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came.
Sorta like a deep sand bed...:notsure:

 

[beth]

Bottom line is: Great having great scientists, theorists but when it comes to space, its a big unknown. 99.999% of what we know about space is theory. Theory is not fact.
I saw a documentary recently that saws that every gallaxy has a black hole at its core and that perhaps the black hole is something to be totally feared. Anyway, its all very interesting and one of my favorite topics. Its the reason I had to get expanded digital cable because of all the junk that is shown on TLC and DC now and no real science, history, etc. Lets learn about how to dress a slop.

 

[fishman830]

i see it as the entrance to the outside from the inside.

 

[aarone]

i went to wet and wild today...excuse me hurricane harbor and rode the black hole!

 

[salty cheese]

Originally posted by Fishman830
i see it as the entrance to the outside from the inside.
Is that like "In through the out door"?

 

[beth]

I think its a big twister in space. It is the core of the galaxy upon which everything else revolves. Like a big twister, it sucks in everything around it, then hurls it out. I don't think it is a route into antother dimention, etc, or whatever awesome concepts that folks have thought up. Its simply the center, upon which matter revolves.

 

[fishman830]

i believe the universe is spherical, but.. indeedly so, very large, with black holes being exploded stars, i think they are the "loop" hole in the universe, and moves stuff around, different dimmensions.

 

[sammystingray]

Even Einstein has been proven wrong....I regretfully doubt we will understand the universe in a factual sense in my lifetime.:notsure: I've read a lot of Hawkings work on time travel....I doubt it is possible for us to achieve in the time the planet earth will exist. Perhaps we might have, but I honestly believe the sun will swallow us up before we have a chance. One question I have asked a million times and still await an answer....if the universe is expanding, it must start at a central point....what is that point, and do things at the beginning of where everything is expanding from move at the same speed? Is there nothing left at the hub since it moved outwards, or is this where new things begin? nobody knows.

 

[orion7]

Out of curiuosity which theory of einsteins has been proven wrong. The only one I can think of is that a black destroys everything. Hawking has been the only one to prove him wrong as far as I know. I have heard theories that there are faster than light particles and Einstein stated such particles are impossible. But they still only theories they have not been proven correct as of yet.

 

[belothsurf]

What get's me wondering, whenever I hear about the universe expanding, is that the concept implies that there is something outside the universe, for it to be able to expand into. What's on the other side?

 

[cathbad]

What's on the other side, you ask? Quite literally, nothing. The universe creates space and time as it expands. Think about the edge of the universe as the universe's event horizon. Even there was something on the other side we could never know about it, nor would it matter because it could never effect us. And this is one of the easier concepts of theoretical physics to grasp.

 

[daniel411]

Originally posted by neoreef
Sorta like a deep sand bed...:notsure:

Originally posted by sammystingray
One question I have asked a million times and still await an answer....if the universe is expanding, it must start at a central point....what is that point, and do things at the beginning of where everything is expanding from move at the same speed?
I'm pretty sure that either Hawkings or Sagan have a book that deal with that! I'll check it out tommorrow when I go home for you.

 

[belothsurf]

Originally posted by Cathbad
And this is one of the easier concepts of theoretical physics to grasp. [/B]
..........:nervous: .....I never took physics..........

 

[belothsurf]

......and, Cathbad, I "knooooow" there is "Nothing" on the other side, I happen to Know a lot about........"er"...nothing.
I just have a hard time grasping the thought of "nothing".....:notsure:

 

[bang guy]

Originally posted by Daniel411

I'm pretty sure that either Hawkings or Sagan have a book that deal with that! I'll check it out tommorrow when I go home for you.
Actually the Hubble has answered that. The universe appears to be symetrically spherical. Meaning it has an exact center and everything at the edges are moving at relatively the same speed.

 

[neoreef]

quote by Danial411:
Originally posted by neoreef
Sorta like a deep sand bed...
Finally, someone got the joke!
:jumping:

 

[broncofish]

Originally posted by orion7
Out of curiuosity which theory of einsteins has been proven wrong. .............
One that stands out is "dark Matter" his theory on explaining gravity in other places remaining consistant with our here...but when some probe started traveling faster once it left our suns gravitational pull they had to rethink that theory. There was a big article on it in discovery magazine about six months ago. Basicaly they were saying that they have several places that could pick up the "impact" of dark matter, but it has yet to ever be found:notsure:

 

[sammystingray]

Originally posted by orion7
Out of curiuosity which theory of einsteins has been proven wrong.
More than one......E does not equal MC2 since the constant is not constant. We have beat the speed of light for 20 years now with light, and we can beat the speed of light presently at four times the speed with electrical signals. I could be wrong, but I believe his thoughts were that light, lacking any mass, would travel as fast as the universe would allow and this would be constant.....it isn't, and the "C" in the equation is false.

 

[fender]

Originally posted by broncofish
One that stands out is "dark Matter" his theory on explaining gravity in other places remaining consistant with our here...but when some probe started traveling faster once it left our suns gravitational pull they had to rethink that theory. There was a big article on it in discovery magazine about six months ago. Basicaly they were saying that they have several places that could pick up the "impact" of dark matter, but it has yet to ever be found:notsure:
Actually it was the Viking probes and they slowed down as they left the Suns pull, basically they should have remained constant or possibly increased if Dark Matter exists. Dark matter is a generally accepted theory but it has a bunch of holes in it.
Einsteins theories also break down at a sub atomic level and IIRC quantum physics defines a new/different set of theories.
Hawking has been proven wrong on a couple of issues and he actually is quite happy when that happens. The more theories that get eliminated the less variables/possibilities exist to answer the questions. Just as Newtons theories were replaced by Einsteins, and his by others, eventually they too will be replaced by still others. Perhaps an all incompassing answer exists but I doubt it will be found in our lifetimes.

 

[orion7]

Originally posted by sammystingray
More than one......E does not equal MC2 since the constant is not constant. We have beat the speed of light for 20 years now with light, and we can beat the speed of light presently at four times the speed with electrical signals. I could be wrong, but I believe his thoughts were that light, lacking any mass, would travel as fast as the universe would allow and this would be constant.....it isn't, and the "C" in the equation is false.
Right his equation is based on measured light speed. Which has been effected by gravity. If the light is measured in an undisturbed environment the constant would be greater. The theory of the equation is sound even if the variables may be off. Mass can be transformed into energy, example nuclear bomb. But I think he knew that he may be wrong on the variables. Because he described the effect of gravitional lensing on light. My biggest problem with einstein theories is his special theory of relativity. There are so many assumations associated with it. Most use it to say that these will be the effects. I don't agree because he used it to describe percieved effects. It basically describes the optical illusion on the individual. All of the experiments showing a temporal discrepancy failed to really show anything. Because they failed to take the experiment back to the exact spot of origin. The planet moves within space itself.