Starship Asterisk*

geckzilla wrote:Ok,

http://www.hawking.org.uk/into-a-black-hole.html

Although you wouldn't notice anything particular as you fell into a black hole, someone watching you from a distance, would never see you cross the event horizon. Instead, you would appear to slow down, and hover just outside. You would get dimmer and dimmer, and redder and redder, until you were effectively lost from sight.

The crossing of the event horizon is not observed but that doesn't mean that the object never disappears. That's what I needed. Otherwise black holes would be covered in red crap.

geckzilla wrote:
Several articles do call the surface imaginary. I'm not sure why. I'm in agreement with Chris's assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild wrote:
<<Karl Schwarzschild (October 9, 1873 – May 11, 1916) was a German physicist. He is also the father of astrophysicist Martin Schwarzschild. He is best known for providing the first exact solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, for the limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass, which he accomplished in 1915, the same year that Einstein first introduced general relativity. The Schwarzschild solution, which makes use of Schwarzschild coordinates and the Schwarzschild metric, leads to the well-known Schwarzschild radius, which is the size of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.

Schwarzschild accomplished this triumph while serving in the German army during World War I. He died the following year from pemphigus, a painful autoimmune disease which he developed while at the Russian front.

Asteroid 837 Schwarzschilda is named in his honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta wrote:

---

<<The Black Hole of Calcutta was a small dungeon in the old Fort William in Calcutta, India, where troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, held British prisoners of war after the capture of the fort on 20 June 1756. One of the prisoners, John Zephaniah Holwell, claimed that following the fall of the fort, British and Anglo-Indian soldiers and civilians were held overnight in conditions so cramped that many died from suffocation, heat exhaustion and crushing. He claimed that 123 prisoners died out of 146 held. However, the precise number of deaths, and the accuracy of Holwell's claims, have been the subject of controversy.

The dungeon was a strongly barred room and was not intended for the confinement of more than two or three men at a time. There were only two windows, and a projecting veranda outside and thick iron bars within impeded the ventilation, while fires raging in different parts of the fort suggested an atmosphere of further oppressiveness. The prisoners were packed so tightly that the door was difficult to close.

One of the soldiers stationed in the veranda was offered 1,000 rupees to have them removed to a larger room. He went away, but returned saying it was impossible. The bribe was then doubled, and he made a second attempt with a like result; the nawab was asleep, and no one dared wake him.

By nine o'clock several had died, and many more were delirious. A frantic cry for water now became general, and one of the guards, more compassionate than his fellows, caused some to be brought to the bars, where Mr. Holwell and two or three others received it in their hats, and passed it on to the men behind. In their impatience to secure it nearly all was spilt, and the little they drank seemed only to increase their thirst. Self-control was soon lost; those in remote parts of the room struggled to reach the window, and a fearful tumult ensued, in which the weakest were trampled or pressed to death. They raved, fought, prayed, blasphemed, and many then fell exhausted on the floor, where suffocation put an end to their torments.

About 11 o'clock the prisoners began to drop off fast. At length, at six in the morning, Siraj-ud-Daulah awoke, and ordered the door to be opened. Of the 146 only 23, including Mr. Holwell (from whose narrative, published in the Annual Register for 1758, this account is partly derived), remained alive, and they were either stupefied or raving. Fresh air soon revived them, and the commander was then taken before the nawab, who expressed no regret for what had occurred, and gave no other sign of sympathy than ordering the Englishman a chair and a glass of water. Notwithstanding this indifference, Mr. Holwell and some others acquit him of any intention of causing the catastrophe, and ascribe it to the malice of certain inferior officers, but many think this opinion unfounded.>>

saturno2 wrote:Error " blak hole "
Correct " black hole"

Beyond wrote:

saturno2 wrote:Error " blak hole "
Correct " black hole"

ERROR--ERROR. Good thing you're not Nomad, saturno2, or you'd have to "Sterilize" yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I sort of understand how a moving observer could not see itself crossing an event horizon. But the stationary observer dropping the object in? What's that about?

An outside observer does see objects cross the event horizon. If you yourself fell into a black hole, however, it would take infinitely long to reach the event horizon- in your reference frame- due to time dilation. From your viewpoint, you would asymptotically approach the horizon but never reach it.

Markus Schwarz wrote:Sorry, but it's the other way around.

THX1138 wrote:This may very well be the same question that was asked some years ago but to my knowledge no definitive answer was ever given. Where there are a number of black holes (Four, five or more) in very close proximity to each other what would this be called.
A group of holes?
A cluster of holes?

saturno2 wrote:What time of " life " can have a black hole ( not supermassive)

Doum wrote:NASA space telescope discovers 10 monster black holes

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/nasa-spa ... 8C11131462

So is it a bunch of black hole? Or a group or a gang or......

wonderboy wrote:My theory on blackholes (and I mean theory in its most loose of forms) is that everything returns to them. Every Galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its centre. As it grows the gravitational pull on everything surrounding it becomes stronger until everything surrounding the black hole returns to its centre. once this has been done by all galaxies all that will remain is the graviational pull of the black holes. they will eventally collide and conjoin until they are all (if not mostly all) one massive blackhole with the overwhelming majority of the universes' mass at its centre. when this happens, the universe is poised for another big bang! just one of my very many thoughts on all things astronomy.

Chris Peterson wrote:So the universe will die a cold death, and not be reborn in another cycle.

saturno2 wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:
"So the Universe will die cold death, and not be reborn in another cycle"
The matter in the Universe will condense at dark matter cold and super dense and is ready to new Big Bang and other cycle...