Black Holes - how fast do they suck things in?

zeilouz · Post by **zeilouz** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:33 pm

Well,

I have made a research on these black holes n it does apply the bernouli's principle..

Thx,Thx1138

Yeah, i am enjoying myself learning something from this site..XD

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:18 pm

Hello All

I think sometimes my wife is Neried. So much alike its not funny. She follows the rules to the "T".

Hello THX1138

How on earth did you get that name?

or

Jumping Jupiter how did you get that name?

Hello Zeilous

http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~pgermann/D ... ciple.html

You said

I have made a research on these black holes n it does apply the bernouli's principle..

Please explain

makc · Post by **makc** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:09 pm

harry wrote:Please explain

He just did, up there ^^

zeilouz · Post by **zeilouz** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:14 pm

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

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:35 pm

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

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).

Note that PF has several sections on 'homework help', as well as many on various branches of physics. If you choose to hang out there, I'd recommend that you spend some time reading before posting, and that when you do post, you start with well-constructed questions.

Should you get the stage where you have an idea that is not found in standard physics textbooks, PF has a section where independent researchers may present their ideas, with much less of the baggage that any of the main physics journals requires, yet core scientific aspects still are (required, that is).

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.

*And don't confuse being critical of ideas with being critical of the people who propose them!

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:21 am

Hello All

Who said Neried does not have a heart?

Good on you Neried, love it when you help people.

You said

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.

My wife says sometimes,,,,,,,,,,,,collect your brains and move along.

=======================================

Hello Zeilous

I'm trying to understand your point. Please expand your thoughts. My brains have fallen out,,,,,,,,,,,smile.

THX1138 · Post by **THX1138** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:23 pm

How fast do black holes suck things in, fast “ No doubt “
But now given the fact that “ So we are told “ That nothing can escape a black hole. Why then are we hearing about “ And seeing pictures “ of this black hole that NASA has found with these jets of material shooting out and perhaps being light years in length.
The black hole in reference is one in the same as in Harry’s thread titled Star formation.

Doum · Post by **Doum** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:20 pm

Hi THX 1138,

From what i read about black hole, the matter that are escaping that black hole was not in the event horizon radius or lower. It was outside of it and that is why it can escape the black hole . Like voyager using jupiter planet to do a flyby before leaving at a new angle and more speed. That matter leaving the BH never get in the event horizon.

-Look:(Quote)

"The black hole inhales much of the matter " (That enter the event horizon)

-But for those that are farther then the event horizon :(Quote)

"but expels some of it outward in a high-speed jet" (High speed jet and heat depend on how close that matter was from the event horizon)

-I think that outside the event horizon the black hole gravity is like the gravity of a sun. So planet that are far enough might stay in orbit around a black hole.

Anyway, that have been discuss earlyer. You might find all the answer everyone have given back then.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:37 am

Hello All

Many speak of black holes, even me.

When it comes down to it, we do not know if a black hole is reality.

Just a thought!!!!!!

So far we know that "maybe" Neutrons compact to 10^17 and with extra mass create electromagnetic/gravitational strong forces that prevent light from escaping.

These neutron compact bodies are able to eject matter at extreme speeds.

The key to the drive is within the core of the compacted matter.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..55..487A

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:15 am

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?

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:16 am

...white holes are quasars.

THX1138 · Post by **THX1138** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:59 pm

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 ?

Superdoc · Post by **Superdoc** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:53 am

what's a black hole's range of sucking things, if its in our milky way

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:11 pm

Hello thx1138

No way in hell.

As for Black holes

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205138

Black hole bonanza: 10,000 objects near our galaxy's center
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _n11830020

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.

Carnegie Leads Team Conducting Most Detailed Cosmological Simulation To Date
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carne ... e_999.html

Evidence for Black Holes

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.

Is there a minimum and a maximum size to stars and black holes?

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q330.html

ooops have to go,,,,,,be back later

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:50 pm

Superdoc wrote:what's a black hole's range of sucking things, if its in our milky way

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.

NoelC · Post by **NoelC** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:00 pm

The universe is complicated, of that there is no question.

It may be governed by relatively simple rules, but there are a LOT of tiny little bits obeying those rules, and interacting, and... The whole dance is very complicated indeed.

As humans, with only a few billion neurons, we can get our heads around some of the rules. Some of them. Others, we tend to abstract in strange ways because we're inside and part of this universe we hope to understand. Gravity for example... Is it something in itself or just a side effect of perturbation of time-space by this stuff we call "matter"?

Even with our imaginations, which can allow us to envision things beyond the laws of the universe - imagine traveling across 13 billion light-years of space in a heartbeat for example - EVEN WITH these wonderful imaginations we can't begin to hope to grok this whole damned thing. Maybe we can model some parts of it to our benefit, but that's probably as far as it will go.

Even if every atom of the Earth were dedicated to the expression of the complexity of the universe, it would be insufficient - considering how small and insignificant our water planet is compared to the visible cosmos (let alone what may be beyond).

So, never let the unimaginable complexity anger you, stress you, or bother you. Instead marvel at its beauty, gawk at its structure, and dream of why it all is. That we are a part of all this is awesome.

That we can debate it is truly wonderful indeed.

-Noel

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:05 am

Well said, well said indeed.

Norval

THX1138 · Post by **THX1138** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:01 am

CC you beat me to that one, almost word for word of what i had ready to post until i got side tracked here, when i got back. There it was, i had to do a double take on who posted.

Kicking this idea around all.
If the universe keeps expanding forever, sooner or later “ perhaps “ in a quadrillion years.
All of the matter that stars are made from ‘ Hydrogen ? Helium ? Or whatever. It will eventually be all used up no? So then what? 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 ?

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:40 am

Then my birthday cake this weekend had the answer,
"Over the hill, to old to count."

oo000OOO000oo

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:58 pm

It seems that rclay's questions, in the OP, have not really been answered all that well.

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?

In short, no it does not explain the spiral ('whirlpool') shapes of (spiral) galaxies.

Start with observations: elliptical galaxies, such as the two prominent in this image of the centre of the Virgo cluster, do not have such shapes, yet do apparently have supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Further, there may well be spiral galaxies without supermassive black holes in their nuclei.

Next, theory. A disk is the shape which a system of particles, interacting gravitationally, will form ... provided there is some initial angular momentum, and provided there is some way for the particles to lose energy (other than gravitationally). While stars rarely interact with each other (except by gravity), the giant clouds of gas and dust which give birth to stars do. While galaxies, especially those with lots of gas and dust, are very complex systems, the origin of the spiral shape of some galaxies is understood to be a density wave, which travels through the disk and causes local regions of star formation in its wake. Further, supermassive black holes do not act like the drains in bathtubs - in fact, very little matter is being sucked into them (though in their very early days things may have been quite different).

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?

The details of how a black hole 'swallows' matter are poorly understood, not least because we cannot (yet) study the process except very remotely.

Here is the general idea; here is a more detailed explanation of one possible mechanism (it's the accretion disk which matters, not the source of the matter nor the size of the 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?

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.

As far as we know, once matter has gone beyond the event horizon, it stays there, except for its eventual re-appearance as Hawking radiation. However, this emission process is incredibly slow, for massive black holes.

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.)

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!

While there are several theories which combine General Relativity and quantum theory - such theories are necessary to answer your questions scientifically - none has yet been tested much. It may be that there are parallel universes, merely millimetres away, in different dimensions; it may be that there are wormholes at the heart of black holes; it may be that the reality is even queerer than anyone today can even imagine.

We live in exciting times!

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?

Why not develop these ideas of yours, and make them into a proper, scientific, theory?

If you're interested, Lee Smolin gives some excellent advice on how to do just that! It's in his book, called "The Trouble with Physics", I think.

makc · Post by **makc** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:57 pm

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 ?

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.

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:41 am

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 ?

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.

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:05 am

GOD wrote:And by the way... the previous poster was not I, but an imposter.

You mean... the man was pretending to be god, but now you entered his body, and made him true voice of god, finally?

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:15 am

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...

Makc: Great line of thinking here... keep it up. As you do, I'll drop bread crumbs along the way to help...

Here's your first: "Dark Matter" is simply very, very TINY matter... smaller than humanity can currently detect. Guys like you will discover this.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:58 am

Starship Asterisk*

Black Holes - how fast do they suck things in?

Re: Black Holes - how fast do they suck things in?

Re: Black Holes - how fast do they suck things in?

Complicated!

Re: Black Holes - how fast do they suck things in?