I have made a research on these black holes n it does apply the bernouli's principle..
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Thx,Thx1138
Yeah, i am enjoying myself learning something from this site..XD
Please explainI have made a research on these black holes n it does apply the bernouli's principle..
He just did, up there ^^harry wrote:Please explain
zeilouz, if you are interested in learning about physics, especially that to do with gravity, black holes, etc, then if I may make a suggestion, it would be to check out internet discussion sites which actively, positively welcome those who want to learn this sort of thing, such as physicsforums.com (PF).zeilouz wrote:that is what i get after i leave for a week,
i did my research n this is what i got,
well,what do u guys think?
correct or incorrect?![]()
Let's discuss
Having an open mind is good, very good ... just make sure it's not so open your brains fall out!
Lastly, remember this: being critical of new ideas* is an essential part of science; those new ideas that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.
rclay wrote:I have a question (actually, several) about Black Holes:
If these things are at the center of some galaxies, does this explain the whirlpool shape that we see in images? I think of the way water drains out of a bathtub -- is that what's going on, on a galactic scale, except it's light and matter and everything, not just water, being pulled into the hole?
If this is happening, I imagine it's an amazing process at the hole -- but in pictures the galaxies always seem so serene. In my bathtub, as the last bit of water runs out the vortex is more swishy and steep-sided; more violent. Is this true of a black hole?
Are there examples of galaxies that are mostly, like 80%, gone into the black hole? Where does the stuff go when it runs out the drain?
Finally, if time, matter, energy, and lost sunglasses all ultimately go into a black hole in the center of a "doomed" galaxy, doesn't this mean that the amount of "stuff" in the universe is decreasing? Or do black holes just recycle stuff back into the universe? If so, it would seem that we have black holes to suck stuff in, but where are the "white holes" that spew the same amount of stuff back out? (I base this on the idea that nothing is ever really lost or added to the universe, that it's a closed system with a lot of activity within the fixed amount of stuff inside.)
Ok, didn't mean to get all Hawking on you, but these are my questions and I'd love to know your responses. Also, the idea of a "white hole" and a return system that counterbalances the process of a black hole is sort of a theory of mine that I'd appreciate not being grabbed and claimed as one's own...nobody can copyright reality, but the ideas we use to discuss reality need to be recognized as the work of the people who take the time to express them, don't-ya-think?
Thousands of superdense neutron stars and midget black holes lurk near the center of our galaxy, according to new X-ray studies of the sky. The stellar-mass black holes are each just 10 times the mass of the sun, much smaller than the supermassive black hole known to inhabit the Milky Way's center. That central black hole has an estimated mass of 3.7 million suns. Each neutron star is about the mass of the sun.
Black holes are common objects in the universe. Each galaxy contains large numbers—perhaps millions—of stellar-mass black holes, each the remnant of a massive star. In addition, nearly every galaxy contains a supermassive black hole at its center, with a mass ranging from millions to billions of solar masses. This review discusses the demographics of black holes, the ways in which they interact with their environment, factors that may regulate their formation and growth, and progress toward determining whether these objects really warp spacetime as predicted by the general theory of relativity.
I'm realistically uncertain of the exact mass and therefore the precise gravitational range of the beast lurking at our galactic center; however, logically speaking, it's gravitational effects would seem to be felt over the expance of about 50,000ly.Superdoc wrote:what's a black hole's range of sucking things, if its in our milky way
In short, no it does not explain the spiral ('whirlpool') shapes of (spiral) galaxies.rclay wrote:I have a question (actually, several) about Black Holes:
If these things are at the center of some galaxies, does this explain the whirlpool shape that we see in images? I think of the way water drains out of a bathtub -- is that what's going on, on a galactic scale, except it's light and matter and everything, not just water, being pulled into the hole?
The details of how a black hole 'swallows' matter are poorly understood, not least because we cannot (yet) study the process except very remotely.If this is happening, I imagine it's an amazing process at the hole -- but in pictures the galaxies always seem so serene. In my bathtub, as the last bit of water runs out the vortex is more swishy and steep-sided; more violent. Is this true of a black hole?
There are no such examples that I am aware of; the supermassive black holes in the galaxies examined to date comprise but a tiny fraction of the galaxies' total masses.Are there examples of galaxies that are mostly, like 80%, gone into the black hole? Where does the stuff go when it runs out the drain?
Black holes are just as much part of our universe as the Earth is; they have mass, they can have an electric charge, they can have spin. All these are very real physical properties!Finally, if time, matter, energy, and lost sunglasses all ultimately go into a black hole in the center of a "doomed" galaxy, doesn't this mean that the amount of "stuff" in the universe is decreasing? Or do black holes just recycle stuff back into the universe? If so, it would seem that we have black holes to suck stuff in, but where are the "white holes" that spew the same amount of stuff back out? (I base this on the idea that nothing is ever really lost or added to the universe, that it's a closed system with a lot of activity within the fixed amount of stuff inside.)
Why not develop these ideas of yours, and make them into a proper, scientific, theory?Ok, didn't mean to get all Hawking on you, but these are my questions and I'd love to know your responses. Also, the idea of a "white hole" and a return system that counterbalances the process of a black hole is sort of a theory of mine that I'd appreciate not being grabbed and claimed as one's own...nobody can copyright reality, but the ideas we use to discuss reality need to be recognized as the work of the people who take the time to express them, don't-ya-think?
United States of Aliens will invent a giant time machine and all go back in time where universe is younger and hotter. Btw... if so, we should see them coming soon.THX1138 wrote:...The last stars that were able to form burn out their lives and the universe is left without any light, just pure darkness and keeps expanding forever.
Then there will be nothing, forever / forever there will be nothing ?
No, because it takes at least two combined supermassive black holes to make a quasar (that occurs during galaxy collisions); and many, many combined supermassive black holes (i.e. galaxy collisions) to make the larger quasars that result after Big Bangs.THX1138 wrote:That’s interesting o great one “Whom is probably from down under and going by the name of Harry, by day “ But then tell us why with the new found hundreds “ if not thousands “ of new found black holes. Why there is not a relatively equal number of each to be seen.
I’m only guessing but I would kind of think that quasars might “ Just possibly “ be kind of easy to spot as apposed to their black relatives ?
Makc: Great line of thinking here... keep it up. As you do, I'll drop bread crumbs along the way to help...makc wrote:why, my theory penetrates the universe on its deepest level, by studying subatomic intelligence, we are getting closer to the essence of entity also referred to as God, entity so powerful that it not only shapes the Universe as we know it, but also underlying laws (like all those things about quantum mechanics that some people find weird). It makes perfect sense, this thing is everywhere in Universe (dark energy) and it obviously cannot be tested in any lab on Earth...