What do you think?Are there millions of unbeliviable things in the UNIVERSE i have just thinking about it and i've read it:
| Quote: |
Black holes actually green: official
Fuel-efficient galactic monsters
By Lester Haines
Published Tuesday 25th April 2006 11:02 GMT
New year, new job? Click here for thousands of tech vacancies.
Black holeScientists studying the energy output of black holes have discovered to their surprise that "the conversion of energy by matter falling toward a black hole is much more efficient than nuclear or fossil fuels" - so much so that "if a car was as fuel-efficient as these black holes, it could theoretically travel more than a billion miles on a gallon of gas".
That's according to boffins at the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, who studied the inner regions of nine elliptical galaxies with a view to determining the rate at which gas is being sucked towards said galaxies' supermassive black holes.
As the gas falls towards the event horizon, it releases energy in the form of high-energy particles which stream away in jets from a "magnetised gaseous disk" encompassing the black hole's core (see pic). These jets then form enormous "bubbles" far out into space.
The question for the Chandra team was how much energy would be required for the jets to produce these bubbles, in some cases thousands of light years across? The answer, according to Steve Allen of Stanford University, is a trillion trillion trillion watts.
The upshot of this fuel-efficient conversion rate, Reuters notes, is that big black holes theoretically have enough gas to keep firing for hundreds of billions of years, way beyond the current estimated age of the universe - a modest 13.7bn years.
A knock-on effect of the black holes' emissions, says Kim Weaver of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, is that the outpouring of energy heats up the gas surrounding the galactic centre, thereby preventing stars from forming from cooling gaseous matter.
Weaver said: "This is one way to keep the stars from forming and letting the galaxies grow bigger." ®
|
yeah man? green?, red or green or blue all are the same !!!
| Quote: |
| yeah man? green?, red or green or blue all are the same !!! |
The article's title is not to be taken literally. Blackholes exert a gravitational force to much for even light to escape. The absence of reflected light is also the absence of color. (If you dont belive me, go shut yourself in a windowless bathroom and turn off the light. Tell me how many colors you see.)
Rather, it is a refrence to the "Enviromentally Clean" methods of energy expenditure they undergo. Obviously, the enviroment on a blackhole is nothing like earths, but if it were, it would apparently be very enviroment-freindly.
I didnt really read the article, but based on what I gleaned, thats what it is supposed to mean by "black holes actually green"
Correct me if I am wrong.Rofl. Green. Must spread.
Heh, wonder why its called a blackhole then?
Because light cant escape the gravitational pull. Like I said in an earlier post, green is reffering to somthing other than the literal color of the black hole.
Game Fortress is correct--blackholes consume all like that passes within the gravitational field, creating a literal black-hole (since black is not a color, but rather the absence of light). Saying it is green, as Game Fortress said, is symbolic of its efficiency. A modest translation would be "Blackholes Are Efficient."
I wish I knew more on blackholes; they always intrigue me. While some light is always sucked in, there is the light just outside the field that is actually bent, but not sucked into the hole. That is the most dramatic case of proving Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Any and all mass creats a sort of impression on a field of space--life can only travel straight, so when we see it curve around a blackhole, we are actually witnessing a laser-demonstration of the curvature of space. It's all so intriguing, but then I have a question:
If the gravitational pull is so strong that it consumes light--the lightest matter known to man--how is it that they are able to emit the X-rays that we detect them by? Would not those be sucked in as well?
i wander what's in a black hole and what happen's ot the thing's that get sucked into it?/
pretty wierd i always think it.. another dimension?? into the future?into the past?/ anyone know anything bout that???
To the best of my knowledge, nobody really knows what's in there. There's plenty of theories, but nothing to back any of them up. Your guess is just as good as mine or anyone else's.
Maybe it's a hole in space--how odd that would be, to have a 3D hole, that leads nowhere. It's fun to ponder
Has anyone read stephen hawkinds: A brief history of time, it encompasses black hole theory, from what i understand a black hole is a star with a mass over a curtain point (somewhere close to 1.5times the size of our own sun, consequently our sun will not turn into a blackhole like i have seen on a few movies) as the star burns away it has two major forces working on it, the increased kinetic energy being applied to the matter from the heat (pushing them out away from the centre), and then the gravitational pull from having such a large mass pulling the matter back to the centre, now at some point the gravitational pull outways the heat created as the star loses energy, pulling it in on itself getting smaller and smaller increasing in density to the point where it gets so dense and has such a strong gravitational pull that not even light can escape it anymore (this works on einsteins theory of the duality of light) theorizing that light isnt exactly matter but it does share some of its properties, in this case it can be bent in space/time by a curtain gravitational pull. As for X-rays being emitted from black holes, im not so sure, i thought black holes where identified by telescope when a planet was in orbit around seemingly nothing (black hole)
as for other dimensions, is anyone familiar with superstring theorys, my explanations my be hard to understand, basically from my limited understanding the universe at point of creation was a infinitesmal 10 dimensional bubble, But this bubble (somewhat like a soap bubble) split into six- and four-dimensional bubbles. The six-dimensional universe suddenly collapsed, thereby expanding the four-dimensional universe into the standard Big Bang. Basically, within these 10 dimensions all energy and matter can be reduced down to tiny vibrating strings. different frequencies of vibration represent the different forms of quanta and as they vibrate space/time warps around them, (apparently this is exactly how einstein predicted) this pretty much links the theorys of quanta and spacetime giving a 10 dimensional hyperspace. Its all pretty crazy stuff, all the equations work but no one can explain why they work, its as though physics has over taken our mathematical ability (basically we just arent smart enough to work it out) Kind of like when newton came up with the formula's for gravity. He had the formula and it worked fine but they didnt have the maths to prove it for another 20 years, until he came up with wat is now called calculus.
| Quote: |
"if a car was as fuel-efficient as these black holes, it could theoretically travel more than a billion miles on a gallon of gas".
|
I wish my car had that kind of mileage, that would be AWESOME!!
well, on my understanding of superstring theory:
you know why sound vibrates through air, the air vibrates it,
but how come light vibrates in space??
that is the question superstring answers, in another dimension something is moving it.
Is that correct?actualy blackholes can not have any colors cause the light can not escape from their gravity force ... but they have some radiation such az X ,,, that we can recognize them ......
yes vibrating light would deffinately be a sign that there is another unforseen dimension effecting that force. amirkpe can u or someone else please show me a link to info showing that black holes give off radiation?
Super string theories sounds like a very interesting subject but I wonder if it is at all possible to "affect" these strings, and if so how? Hmmm....
Time to ponder this.....
Its a very cute play on words:
But there is still so much we dont know.
S.Hawkin thinks the black hole has another end...A back door if you will.
He's named them "white holes" and predicts that everything that gets sucked into the black hole (minus some radiation) gets coughed up via white holes to form quasars.
-it seems even the best "green machine" has an exhaust.
| Juparis wrote: |
Maybe it's a hole in space--how odd that would be, to have a 3D hole, that leads nowhere. It's fun to ponder |
I was pondering this as well and have made an interesting find I think. If a hole is normally defined as a 2d object on a plane, it is the absence of material or space on that plane. However in a 3d area would it still be the absence of space, only in a ball type thing i guess. That would be wierd to look at, a hole in the fabric of space-time. That one has me stumped however, as to what that would look likeWhere is that article from? Just askin'. Cool beans otherwise.
| Lord Kuat wrote: |
| Where is that article from? Just askin'. Cool beans otherwise. |
From http://news.google.comWait...in space, if your far enough away from a source of light, how can you tell what color it is? If there is no visible light, then there is no color. Isn't that right? Everything we see is from visible light.
So, we have no color to define a black hole as right?
aparently you can hear the colour with a radioteloscope.
diff. wavelenths make diff. sounds, so you can tell that way.
If i'm wrong, then blame the volunteer tourguide from the parkes radioteloscope, Australia.
Schmarvin Wrote:
| Quote: |
Wait...in space, if your far enough away from a source of light, how can you tell what color it is? If there is no visible light, then there is no color. Isn't that right? Everything we see is from visible light.
So, we have no color to define a black hole as right? |
No. We define black holes as black because they are black.
You see, black is the color of any object that does not reflect or emit any light. If I describe such an object, you can be sure it will be black even without seeing it.
R2.DETARD Wrote:
| Quote: |
aparently you can hear the colour with a radioteloscope.
diff. wavelenths make diff. sounds, so you can tell that way.
If i'm wrong, then blame the volunteer tourguide from the parkes radioteloscope, Australia. |
That is incorrect. Yes you can tell the shade of an object by the radio wavelength it emits, but radio waves travel at a speed no greater than the speed of light. Therefore in most cases there is no need to use a radio telescope to tell what color the object is, you simply study the light arriving from that object.
The only areas where a radio telescope is needed to determine color is when the light emitted from the object has met interference and is no longer accurate. lol
"new! environmentaly freindly black holes! buy one now!"
So according to the law, every action has an equal but opposite reaction, what is the opposite reaction of a black hole? White holes aren't proven and have an even less theoretical possibility than a black hole. So what could it be?
If the black hole is only there because there is a bunch of mass in a certain area, and that causes it to have a great gravitational field, shouldn't there be something else that essentialy produces no gravity?
So now we're thinking of space. Nothingness. Could space be the opposite reaction of a black hole? Could the black hole create these vibrations producing nothing but empty space?
