Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Black Holes  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10907 posts, RR: 37
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Give me a black hole so I can fly on Concorde again and sail on the QE2.  spin   cloudnine 

Supermassive Problems with Black Holes
Dec 09, 2008
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081209blackholes.htm

Black holes are said to cause space and time itself to twist and warp so that the past becomes the future and velocity calculations yield impossible solutions. Matter inside of a black hole occupies no volume at all, yet retains gravitational acceleration so great that not even light can escape its attraction – thus they are "black" holes because they cannot be detected with optical telescopes. Although they are impossible to observe directly over 90% of galaxies in the universe are said to harbor these perilous maws.


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11720 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

I found this passage interesting:

"Copious groups of anti-particles interact and annihilate each other, releasing electromagnetic radiation that propagates outward at the speed of light. The extremely high light frequencies are seen as a gamma ray burst on Earth along with an "afterglow" of ultraviolet and x-ray emissions."

From that passage, light is not the fastest particle? When did that study happen? I don't think black holes are without volume, either. If they ingest light particles and send out the inner workings of the light particles at a faster rate than they enter, that means the leftovers have to be somewhere. Or, perhaps the black hole uses the leftovers as fuel to propel the gamma rays?

This is all very interesting!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Give me a black hole so I can fly on Concorde again and sail on the QE2. spin cloudnine

Count me in here! Especially the Concorde part. Would be awesome if that is possible Time traveling to the 70s and flying Concorde over and over again  bouncy 

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10907 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1419 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 2):
Count me in here! Especially the Concorde part.

That's a deal. If we find the black hole you and I will get priority for flying on Concorde -free off charge- the number of times we wish to do it. Anybody else who wants to go will have to get permission from us.  Big grin

I have the Captains, FOs and FEs. I know they will be happy to get their hands back on the aircrafts.

I also want to have the QE2 part.  cheerful 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
That's a deal. If we find the black hole you and I will get priority for flying on Concorde -free off charge- the number of times we wish to do it. Anybody else who wants to go will have to get permission from us. Big grin

I am in for that deal!!!! But one thing:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
I have the Captains, FOs and FEs. I know they will be happy to get their hands back on the aircrafts.

I want to be on the controls myself Big grin so better fasten your seatbelts tight  duck 

How true or how realistic is this with the black holes? Maybe we should call the mythbusters and see if it is plausible, busted or confirmed  Wink

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1399 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4):
How true or how realistic is this with the black holes? Maybe we should call the mythbusters and see if it is plausible, busted or confirmed

Not sure there are any "benign" black holes out there. They tend to rip objects to pieces before they make it across the event horizon. The intense radiation that emanates from the area surrounding a black hole are the "screams" of charged particles as they are dragged into the vortex.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting NoWorries (Reply 5):
Not sure there are any "benign" black holes out there. They tend to rip objects to pieces before they make it across the event horizon. The intense radiation that emanates from the area surrounding a black hole are the "screams" of charged particles as they are dragged into the vortex.

Thanks for the explanation.

Hmm, I expected something like that. So I guess it won't happen. Maybe the guys in Switzerland with their CERN produce a nice big black hole which will bring us back to stoneage  Wink

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10907 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1382 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 6):
Maybe the guys in Switzerland with their CERN produce a nice big black hole which will bring us back to stoneage

No way I will let them do that. I will go to CERN to ask them to bring us back to the days of the Flying Concordes. The QE2 will also be there in full bloom then.  champagne   cheerful 

They can experiment the stone age with some far off land. Maybe Antarctica.  ghost 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Maybe black holes are the universes toilet/sewage systems. I've always been fascinated about them, because it's hard to think that something the size of the earth can become nothing, and by nothing, I mean energy as well but yet has an infinite weight to it. It makes me wonder what's on the other side. Hell or Heaven? HAHA.

Maybe black holes are the key to time travel, however, nothing in the Universe we know of would be able to stand the intense gravitational pull of of a black hole to survive to see the other side.

Hmmm...

UAL


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10907 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1312 times:

I would rather go in a black hole any time rather than because of a nuclear explosion. I guess we won't even feel anything if we get swallowed by a black hole. It could happen so fast that we don't even realize it. We would just disappear out of the blue and be annihilated in an instant.

Black holes are most interesting indeed. I wonder how much astronomers and physicists really know about them.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1308 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 9):
I wonder how much astronomers and physicists really know about them.

Probably nothing because they have no relativity to the Earth and how it works. We know very little about Time/Space other than the very limited theories.

UAL


User currently offlineBritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

I remember back in my A-level physics class, we calculated that in order for earth to become a black hole, all its mass would need to condensed into something about the size of a 20 pence piece.

User currently offlineHorizonGirl From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1256 times:

I had actually thought about making a career out of studying black holes before I got bitten by the aviation bug. It's all very interesting.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 8):

Maybe black holes are the key to time travel, however, nothing in the Universe we know of would be able to stand the intense gravitational pull of of a black hole to survive to see the other side.

That's a point, maybe we could come up with something that produces a powerful electromagnetic field that would protect whatever/whoever was being sent in.
Just a random thought.

Devon



Flying high on the Wings of the Great Northwest!
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2559 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1233 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 1):
"Copious groups of anti-particles interact and annihilate each other, releasing electromagnetic radiation that propagates outward at the speed of light. The extremely high light frequencies are seen as a gamma ray burst on Earth along with an "afterglow" of ultraviolet and x-ray emissions."

Here's what my feeble mind can't understand - if black holes pull in everything, even light, how are things like this able to be emitted? Wouldn't they also fall back in?
They are a fascinating phenomenon, probably worthy of their own branch on th physics tree.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1201 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 13):
if black holes pull in everything, even light, how are things like this able to be emitted? Wouldn't they also fall back in?

My limited understanding is that black holes pull in light (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation) that happens to cross the event horizon because space has become extremely curved beyond that point, but light pointed in some other direction continues unimpeded (the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their frame of reference). When energy is released from these annihilation events (in the form of electromagnetic radiation), if it doesn't cross the horizon it just continues onward (outward) but it can have it's path bent.

Edited for spelling

[Edited 2008-12-12 16:11:47]

User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1191 times:

Personally, I'd rather not know what it's like to be swallowed up by a black hole.

But maybe that's just me.


User currently offlineJoshSixtySeven From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1161 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
I also want to have the QE2 part. cheerful

That makes two of us!

How about: Southampton - New York (QE2) - London (Concorde)

Seems like the trip from heaven to me!


User currently offlineAAden From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

hawking suggested that if we were in enter into a blackhole anyone witnessesing the event would see us ripped apart. But from our piont of view we would not be destroyed and would continue our jounrey until we reached the event horizon. His theory is that information is not destroyed or lost but simply stretched.

It was on the science channel.
He redid his theory on black holes in 2003.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ing-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html

I added the link,

[Edited 2008-12-12 19:28:48]

User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11720 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1055 times:



Quoting ER757 (Reply 13):
how are things like this able to be emitted? Wouldn't they also fall back in?

Maybe the mass of particles of radiation is larger than that of particles of light, so the radiation can escape. Is there any "side view" of a black hole? I am just wondering because what would light particles look like travelling across the ingesting part of a black hole? Would they bend toward the hole the closer it gets until, at some point, light just goes in? Since the theory is time becomes distorted in a black hole, I wonder if time has a mass as well? If time were simply a thought and not an object, it would not have mass, right? Don't objects only have mass?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1034 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 18):
Maybe the mass of particles of radiation is larger than that of particles of light

Usually, but not always, the term radiation implies electromagnetic radiation. Visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, etc. are all just examples of electromagnetic radiation -- differing only in their frequency. This radiation exhibits both wave and particle properties. The individual packets are called photons. Photons have no "rest mass" -- but they do posses energy and momentum.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 18):
I wonder if time has a mass as well? If time were simply a thought and not an object, it would not have mass, right?

One of the great debates of science is the nature of time -- no one knows for sure. Special relativity tells us that space and time form a continuum which, for example, allows different observers traveling at different velocities to nonetheless observe light traveling at the same speed. General relativity tells us that mass and energy can cause space/time to warp which creates the "effects" of gravitational attraction and time dilation. I don't believe that anywhere in these theories is a mass attributed to time or space.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19954 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1018 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 1):
From that passage, light is not the fastest particle? When did that study happen? I don't think black holes are without volume, either. If they ingest light particles and send out the inner workings of the light particles at a faster rate than they enter, that means the leftovers have to be somewhere. Or, perhaps the black hole uses the leftovers as fuel to propel the gamma rays?

I think you misread it. Think of an explosion. The first thing you see is a burst of high-intensity light. And then it fades. So its BOOOOOooom! Ergo, a gamma ray burst followed by an "after-glow" of less intense light.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 5):
They tend to rip objects to pieces before they make it across the event horizon. T

Depends on the mass of the black hole. A supermassive black hole like the one at the core of our galaxy has such a huge mass that the spacetime curvature at the event horizon is probably not that terrible. In fact, you could easily cross the event horizon without noticing that anything was terribly amiss. But when you tried to get away, you'd find that you were going in circles no matter what direction you tied to move.

So the point is to stay away from them.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 13):

Here's what my feeble mind can't understand - if black holes pull in everything, even light, how are things like this able to be emitted? Wouldn't they also fall back in?

Well there are a number of ways that black holes can emit radiation. But never directly. However, black holes aren't so black. In fact, a very small black hole with the mass of, say, a textbook, would actually be white hot.

Space is full of "virtual particles." These are little particles and antiparticles that appear out of nowhere and then vanish back into nothing a split second later. They are usually of no consequence; a mere theoretical implication of quantum theory, because they never interact with anything. They're only there because the mathematical models that physicsts use to describe quantum theory require that these virtual particles "exist."

Except there is one way in which they are important. If a pair of virtual particles is formed near an event horizon and one of the pair falls in and the other doesn't, then a rather curious effect occurs called "hawking radiation" in which the surviving member of the pair radiates away from the black hole, while the doomed partner somehow robs the black hole of mass. The smaller the black hole, the weaker the pull of gravity and so the less likely it is to capture both virtual particles. Thus, smaller black holes are "hotter" than large ones because they radiate more.

Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" has an excellent, non-mathematical explanation for this phenomenon.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Black Friday Stampede Kills Walmart Worker posted Fri Nov 28 2008 08:58:54 by Flynavy
Anti Gay Black List posted Fri Nov 14 2008 00:03:58 by Tsaord
Black Hat - Any A.netters Attending? posted Thu Aug 7 2008 22:46:07 by Tugger
Sundays Stupid Thread: Is It Illegal To Black List posted Sun Mar 9 2008 15:00:05 by MCOflyer
Black And Hispanic posted Mon Feb 18 2008 21:27:04 by Tsaord
Men In Black posted Thu Feb 14 2008 15:59:52 by Jetjack74
Black And White Harry Enfield posted Sun Dec 30 2007 19:47:34 by Andz
Black 'n' Gold Thread, 2nd And 10 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 20:31:32 by Steeler83
Black Driver Shoots Two In Self-Defense posted Wed Dec 19 2007 02:53:31 by Miamiair
Black N Gold Thread 2 posted Sun Dec 9 2007 14:02:23 by Steeler83