A fairly common concept is that galaxies have at their center a gravitational mass which is commonly refered to as a "black hole" or "singularity". I do not disagree, mainly because I can't think of a better idea.

Here is the problem. Discussions on the age of the universe give our solar system an age of 4-6 billion (US) years. The Milky Way is given an age twice that and the universe as a whole three times that.

The treatise I read, claimed that our solar system had to wait to be formed because supernova expolsions were required to create the elements eventually winding up on Earth. Also the spiral nature of the Milky Way had to develop before our solar system could form.

I don't get it...we go from the big bang...to matter...to black holes/singularities...to formation of galaxies.

The sequence is wrong. Black holes are formed by the collapse of neutron stars greater than 3 solar masses. But the super nova of such a large mass star required to make a neutron star which would eventually collapse and make that size singularity required to form a galaxy, would have blown all the matter off to never never land and not allow the formation of a galaxy.

Your thoughts/comments are appreciated.

Nox

Just a guess, assuming the Gravistar theory is correct, the matter to create galaxies is not created but transfered into the sphere of a gravistar and more matter is gathered from a surrounding universe. The big bang, we record as this universe, is the inside of a gravistar at the moment it becomes a gravistar. each gravistar being a universe of it's own with it's own time as defined by the universe in it, or perhaps a universe is actually the bubble of a gravistar, not inside, not outside, constantly expanding.
What are the theories on black holes or gravistars, burning out or consuming everything?

Curious,

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuriousMonky:
What are the theories on black holes or gravistars, burning out or consuming everything?

---

Good question. I have neither read or thought about that.

Nox

here is a good link on gravistars and how they are the new black holes
http://www.sciforums.com/t5376/scd6aa1f3497a9a894943c2c19febdb24/thread.html

a friend mentioned a new theory that singulatarys are not a pin point but a ring, or a circle, and they spin really fast, the matter than falls into them passes through the ring... hmmm anyone heard anything like this, thanks for bring up gravistars monkey, i had no clue what they were but a trip to google fixed that, very interesting stuff

You posit a good question and it deserves an attempt at an explanation.

Since we observe laws of energy and matter and that these laws tend to state that matter is created nor destroyed, we can guess how and what mechanisms are at play to keep the galaxy and the universe(s) together.

Perhaps each black hole is actually a "fastener" that binds one galaxy/universe togehter at that point. There would be a "push-pull" mechanism involved where matter and antimatter would be exchanged to keep both systems in equilibrium.

If we every figure out how to travel through these balck holes it's possible we could go much faster than light, if we could survive the trip. Perhaps powerful EMF could allow us to travel through them. But how would you know where you were, especially if black holes function in the way I stated? Someday I'm sure we will shoot probes into one and with quantum entaglement, we may be able to determine where the probe is at.

I've always wondered what is on the other side of a black hole. Just like what is under Europa's Ice Crust

Curious,
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that gravistars themselves may very well be galaxies/universes?

If so, do you think the gravastars in our universe is like a universe inside a universe?

Joe,

Too much Disney on the other side of a black hole...ain't nuttin on the other side because once you enter, you're there, only to be emitted in the cosmic jets perpendicular to the accretian disk.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
I've always wondered what is on the other side of a black hole. Just like what is under Europa's Ice Crust

---

Europa's ice, good question.

Nox

Nox, did you see the Article called "The Way of The World is force" Sorry its off topic but just thought I'd throw that out. Also, Who is that guy that is a quadriplegic but is supposed to be a genius and writes about this stuff all the time?

Joe,

First question, NO. Tell me about it.

Second question, Steven Hawkins. He sits in the chair once held by Issac Newton. I think it's at Cambridge.

Nox

quote:

---

"What are the theories on black holes or gravistars, burning out or consuming everything?"

---

" ... the lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperature. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, so it loses mass more quickly. What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs. "

...and it is Hawking.

[This message has been edited by cntrdcton0fate (edited 06-06-2002).]

cntr,

quote:

---

Originally posted by cntrdcton0fate:
[b] but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs. [B]"[/B]

---

This is the first time I have heard of an explosion being the end of a black hole. My understanding was that the black hole would completely disintegrate with the end being nothing.

Help me out...why would the last part of the black hole matter explode? What would be the mechanism causing it to explode versus it just disintegrating? I envision the black hole as a stable entity. Why would the loss of mass cause instability?

I realize that you stated the part about "the most reasonable guess", however, that statement implies a prior knowledge/discussion of the topic.

Please share that knowledge/discussion with me.

Nox

It's on Totse. go to political spew and it's there. I think you might like it. Stephen hawkins is the guys name?

Joe,

cntr is right...Hawking...Steven Hawking.

Nox

Ah okay. Did you ever read any of his research?

i have and have already explained it, he proved black holes emit radiation... its in another theread somwhere...

He also wrote one theory on how the universe originated, then said he was wrong. I forgot the big details since I read that 10 years ago

"a friend mentioned a new theory that singulatarys are not a pin point but a ring, or a circle, and they spin really fast, the matter than falls into them passes through the ring" Segue

That's, pretty much, my understanding of a gravistar, except that some of the matter doesn't pass through the ring(sphere) but becomes a part of it.

"Perhaps each black hole is actually a "fastener" that binds one galaxy/universe togehter at that point. There would be a "push-pull" mechanism involved where matter and antimatter would be exchanged to keep both systems in equilibrium" Frankm12

That's an idea I like.

"Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that gravistars themselves may very well be galaxies/universes?
If so, do you think the gravastars in our universe is like a universe inside a universe?" Malaria.

exactly.

"Help me out...why would the last part of the black hole matter explode? What would be the mechanism causing it to explode versus it just disintegrating? I envision the black hole as a stable entity. Why would the loss of mass cause instability?" Nox

Oh how I love talking with you Nox.LOL.
Another guess... The explosion, would occur because matter cannot be destroyed. Perhaps it acts like a star? The matter which makes up the shpere collapsing upon itself. I am sure you have a better understanding of stars actions than I do. I have envisioned a black hole or gravistar as a stable entity also, but only in it constant changing. This is why I posed my question. Also perhaps the loss of mass causes instability because it is lossing mass quicker than it is gaining mass, therefor, no balance?

Curious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuriousMonky:
I am sure you have a better understanding of stars actions than I do.

---

I wish what you said was true; unfortunately, you are probably more knowledgeable than I.

Two weeks ago, I would have gone along with what you said about black holes being a link between universes. Then I watched a show on Discovery where they talked about black holes disintegrating to nothing because of the energy being released perpendicular to the accretion disk.

If black holes are links to other universes, then eventually all contact between the universes (and possibly other dimensions) is doomed to be lost. If that happens, then what? (I know, another topic on this forum.)

Nox

The shortest distance between 2 points is always a str8 line. except when worm holes come in.......

Nox, I'm not ignoring you it is just that at this moment this is not going to be my train of thought. I will get back to you though, thanks for the patience.

Hey NOX, not seen you on the board in a while.

This is my understanding of the subject. I read a lot about it, and for sources I suggest New Scientist and Physics World. Both are magasines, but both also have exceptionally good websites as well.

Big bang kicks it all off. matter and anti matter produce. Krackov's law and ( I forget his name's) Law show how there is a slight imbalance between matter and anti matter anhililation. This leads to the physical universe we have today ( There is a nice new proof of this that was published in Physics World and Nature, to do with the spin of nutrienos, that even a simpleton like myslef understood.)

This matter condensed into the stars, and eventually, the planets that we have today. As the stars go through there fusion processes, they convert lighter atoms into heavier atoms. Alpha and Beta decay handle the elemets that are not naturally formed in the stars ( Most odd numbered elements)

AT THE SAME TIME, stars are also collapsing and forming black holes. While it maybe true that there are black holes at the centre of a good percentage of galaxies, the centre of a galaxy is not needed to form a black hole.

I think where the confusion arises in this subject is that all these occurences DONT have to happen at the same time. It's only when considered in a strictly linear timepath that you get yourt head messed around.

I also wouldn't attach to much empathis to the gravistar theory. As I understand it, it was a theory that was thrown out unexpectedly by a group who got odd results in their maths. It was jumped on by a lot of people looking for a different way of thinking about the black hole problems, but the matths has been re-worked a lot, and shown that the basis of the theory was flawed.

References: Nature ( passim ) Physics World ( this months) new scientist, Universe in a Nutshell, Stephen Hawking, 2001.


RipSlider

Thanks Rip,

Those references will keep me off the streets and out of trouble tomorrow (My neighbors will send up prayers of thanksgiving for you). I thank you in advance.

Nox

Also see SCIENCE, volume 296.

Sorry, have forgotten the pages.

RipSlider

THIS IS WHY I LOVE TOTSE

I find this real interesting and all....but its hard for a 14 year old sociopath that droped out of grade 5 to grasp all of this...