black holes and mass

[harry]

Hello eyecapitain1


Looks nice, but the more we look at images like that the more we tend to believe that Black Holes look like that, similar to the movies.

[Qev]

Pete, the images we see on graphics regarding black holes depict it as a whirlpool or tornado type of structure pulling matter into the vortex. Perhaps this is a poor depiction. If this is the structure there should be another end as there is in a whirlpool or tornado. In that case does it pull matter in from both ends? There was a reply stating black holes pull matter in from all angles. If this is the case the depictions we get of what they look like are deceiving. Hope I clarified the question.

One thing to bear in mind is that the 'tornado-like' depictions of black holes you're referring to are actually two-dimensional analogies to the structure of a black hole, or rather how a black hole distorts spacetime around itself. Trying to depict something like this in its full three dimensions would be very difficult to interpret for the human brain.

Things that fall into black holes usually don't come back out for a very, very long time (if ever), since all paths beyond the event horizon lead to the singularity, where one is spaghettified, then crushed down to become part of the singularity. There are exceptions to this; Kerr black holes (ie. rotating black holes), according to theory, should have two event horizons, and may actually be able to act as gateways to other universes as an infalling traveller isn't doomed to always strike the singularity. We've never observed anything that looks like the 'other end' of a black hole like this, however.

[Raw Sunlight]

Much as i love the idea of cyclical Big-Bang-Big-Crushes, it seems the universe is one big energy dissipation mechanism; we see it everywhere, including life itself.

That there was some event (whether vast energy branes colliding or the finger of some alien scientist accidentally brushing dandruff into a mouldy old petri-dish), seems without question; everything needs a beginning, no matter how far back that might have to be and how difficult that might be to comprehend; but can someone show me a perpetually self-generating energy source in nature (or otherwise)?

Stars die, black holes spit out great polar streams of high energy xrays (and even steam from particle-evaporating quantum foam now it seems) to vent energy...the vacuum of space calls for one vast sea of thermal equilibrium!

Seems more likely we'll just dissipate.
I'm not a religious man, but 'dust to dust, ashes to ashes' seems perfectly apt for everything we're discovering of our great and wonderful universe...
...unless the desire of the mass conscious will of all of life to merely survive is somehow strong enough to 'think' our universe back into existence;
seems kinda unlikely...but, hell, what do i know, i'm an artist!

Of course, all that M-string brane theory stuff would make anyone's perpetual-energy-source ideas quiver with anticipation!...and if there was a beginning, then what 'was' before it? Where did the energy that made our big bang come from? Where does 'it's' energy stem from? Why doesn't 'it' achieve thermal equilibrium? Big-Bang-Big-Crush does help get round that, doesn't it?! But doesn't an endless see-sawing pendulum of universe creation and destruction still need some energy input to keep it from decaying? ...if one little bit of matter weren't recovered in any one of an infinite number of Big Crushes??? I mean, i lose keys, socks, money, girlfriends...
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLP!
Pop...brain implodes in a very pretty Escher-like sequence of disinfractalisationalismic spirals and fades to black!

[harry]

Hello All

This is a repost

News flash. Sydney Morning Herald.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"London: The universe we live in may not be the only one but just the latest in a line of repeating big bangs stretching back through time, according to the latest theory from cosmologists.
Instead of being formed from a single big bang about 14 billion years ago destined to expand and eventually peter out to the cold, dead remains of stars, the universe may be an endless loop of explosions and contractions stretching forever.
The latest theory has been postulated to account for what Einstein described as his biggest Blunder"", the cosmological constant, a number linking energy and space, which he proposed to account for the galaxies being driven apart."
Physcists have since than measured the number as too small.
The constant is a mathematical representaion of the energy of empty space, known as dark energy, which exerts a kind of anti-gravity, pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It hapens to be a googol(1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single big bang.
According to the new theory, published yesterday in the journal Science, the discrepancy can be explained if the universe itself is billions of years older and fashioned from cyclical big bangs.
people have infered that time began then, but there really wasn't a reason for that infrernce, said Neil Turok, a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain. " what we are proposing is very radical. Its saying there was time before the Big Bang".
There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".
If this theory is right, how long have we got until the next big bang?
Professor Turok said " We can't predict when it will happen with any precision- all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years".