There are many popular myths concerning black holes, many of them perpetuated by Hollywood. Television and movies have portrayed them as time-traveling tunnels to another dimension, cosmic vacuum cleaners sucking up everything in sight, and so on. It can be said that black holes are really just the evolutionary end point of massive stars. But somehow, this simple explanation makes them no easier to understand or less mysterious. What do you guys think about them?
Black-hole warp
As for being gateways between dimensions; I believe universes would be a better word for that, but even if they are, it would be impossible to use one: anything would be crushed to oblivion before even getting close to it, also, just because it's got too much gravity to let light escape dosn't mean it's dead as a star: It would probably still be very hot inside.
As for them being cosmic vaccum cleaners sucking everything up; that's preposterous. Just because a star colapses onto itself dosn't mean that the star gains any mass! It still has the exact same gravity it had before it burned out. If there were any planets orbiting it that survived it's supernova, they would continue to orbit it normaly. The only thing that would make the black hole more dangerous than the star it once was would be that there is a slightly better chance of running into it without noticing it ahead of you. (assuming interstellar travel)
Yes, they could, theoreticly, be used for time travel, but you have two problems with that:
1: By the time you get to the center of it, you'll have been torn apart to sub-atomic particles.
2: Once you get to the center, you need to get out again. (which theoreticly, is impossible)
My question about black holes:
Absolutely no energy excapes from a black hole right? Yet they certainly do absorb a lot of energy (via radiation from nearby (relitively) stars). Won't that energy eventualy build up enough to overcome even the extreme gravity of the black hole?
As for them being cosmic vaccum cleaners sucking everything up; that's preposterous. Just because a star colapses onto itself dosn't mean that the star gains any mass! It still has the exact same gravity it had before it burned out. If there were any planets orbiting it that survived it's supernova, they would continue to orbit it normaly. The only thing that would make the black hole more dangerous than the star it once was would be that there is a slightly better chance of running into it without noticing it ahead of you. (assuming interstellar travel)
Yes, they could, theoreticly, be used for time travel, but you have two problems with that:
1: By the time you get to the center of it, you'll have been torn apart to sub-atomic particles.
2: Once you get to the center, you need to get out again. (which theoreticly, is impossible)
My question about black holes:
Absolutely no energy excapes from a black hole right? Yet they certainly do absorb a lot of energy (via radiation from nearby (relitively) stars). Won't that energy eventualy build up enough to overcome even the extreme gravity of the black hole?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
My question about black holes: Absolutely no energy excapes from a black hole right? Yet they certainly do absorb a lot of energy (via radiation from nearby (relitively) stars). Won't that energy eventualy build up enough to overcome even the extreme gravity of the black hole? |
One of my mates on the BBC was a BH whizz so I've picked up a fair bit from him. I'll have a bash at this one.......
Hawking radiation is currently accepted by many physicists as a real phenomenon. This means that energy DOES escape from a BH and in fact a BH radiates steadily into space. I've got a diagram somewhere....hang on.....ahh yes....ignore it for now, I'll return to it in a bit.
It's not too tricky to explain, but the theory is not settled yet and there are 4 (that I know of) variations on a theme.
Basically what happens is that normal quantum fluctuation means that particle pairs will be produced around the event horizon.
In the simplest theory that I have seen, you are invited to imagine a particle/antiparticle pair forming so that the positive particle falls in and the anti-particle escapes. Since the captured particle has a negative mass-energy, the theory goes on, then the effect is to reduce the mass/energy of the BH.
This is actually an over simplified and wrong version of the theory I think. Anti particles do not actually have negative mass-energy so it doesn't really work.
Another variant has the particle-pair form just inside the event horizon and one particle escapes via quantum tunnelling. Since it then becomes external radiation and leaves it's negative twin behind then it follows that mass-energy is reduced. This seems to me to be logical and possible....
The latest version is more complex and goes like this :
| Quote: |
| Quantum vacuum fluctuations can be analyzed into positive and negative frequencies. If the propagating fluctuations in the far future (far from the black hole) are extrapolated back into the far past (prior to the formation of the black hole), it is found that the future positive-frequency fluctuations are consistent with the emission of radiation from the black hole and the absorption of negative frequency components by the black hole, diminishing its mass-energy. |
This is interesting in itself. It relies on an analysis that precedes the black hole's existence to work. Thus it cannot work if the BH has always existed. If one imagines a region of gravity collapse just after the BB then the theory would seem to imply that hawking radiation would not apply since there would be no time for it to happen in. This might actually be useful in testing the hypothesis I think...we'll have to see.
Back to the diagram. As particles fall into the event horizon they have a photon-like quality - ie they have a null connection to all exernal distances at all future times.
I can't remember who I was talking about photons with but the conclusion we reached (I think) was that a photon does not exist in time at all, only in space. Or put another way, if a photon could have a point of view it would witness the whole of eternity from BB to (whatever?) in zero time. The length contraction means they are emitted and absorbed in literally zero time interval.
I was dubious a bit about this until I messed around with Lorentz equation and satisfied myself that for v=c there are no sensible results - the time co-ords tend to infinity as v approaches c - the x co-ord tends to infinity and the t co-ord is coincidental with any other v=c event.
At this point I was getting into deep waters. I tried the normal doppler shift :
Which seems to concurr since the wavelength is now infinity at v=c which means the photon has nowhere to go. Also of course the frequency would be zero.....
Anyway - back to the worldline diagram. The red curve signifies the worldline of an in-falling particle, and the gold curve a lightlike (null) locus from the in-falling particle to the exterior region in the future. Notice that the 'in-falling' worldline passes through every one of the external Schwarzschild times (to future infinity) prior to actually crossing the event horizon. This seems to support the time-based solution to the hawking radiation hypothesis, since as the particle passes through each of these times, there still null paths from the particle to the future exterior, so the in-falling particle has infinite opportunities to radiate to the exterior region and 'escape' the event horizon.
That's about where we got to when my head exploded and I had to spend the rest of the evening looking for an Aspirin
Regards
Chris
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total
As an aside,
I recently came across what I think is the best introduction to Relativity on the web (certainly the best I have seen). It isa not patronising or over simplified and is nicely written with animations where helpful. Nor does it shy away from the more tricky bits of GR and space geometry. I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about how the world around them actually works according to physics.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html
Regards
Chris
I recently came across what I think is the best introduction to Relativity on the web (certainly the best I have seen). It isa not patronising or over simplified and is nicely written with animations where helpful. Nor does it shy away from the more tricky bits of GR and space geometry. I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about how the world around them actually works according to physics.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html
Regards
Chris
Besides the actual science behind it, don't you love the episodes of Stargate with blackholes? They're fun. But all Stargate episodes are, really.
Which makes me think. Do we have a TV/movie place on this forum?
Which makes me think. Do we have a TV/movie place on this forum?
| benjmd wrote: |
| Besides the actual science behind it, don't you love the episodes of Stargate with blackholes? They're fun. But all Stargate episodes are, really.
Which makes me think. Do we have a TV/movie place on this forum? |
No, I can't stand Stargate. Formularised TV sci-fi of the blandest type in my book. I am a fan of the old 1950-60s B movie genre because at least they were trying to tell a story for real, despite the terrible FX. I have a large SF book collection (several thousand), and read for preference rather than watch. I find that visuals either dominate with wizz-bang SFX, or fail to convince completely. The mind doesn't have that problem and works everytime.
There are a few exceptions.
Blade Runner is, I think, a fantastic attempt. Others would be 2001, Silent Running, the original Metropolis, Aliens and the Lord of the Rings films, if only for the scope and work involved.
Chris.
I have always been ineterested with black holes, but don't know all too much about them. What I have always wondered, is what would a small black hole that just appeared on earth, forget that this probably could never happen, look like. As it sucks in all light, would you just see black, and how large does the actual black hole get, theoretically it is infinitely small, but practically, that's impossible, there has to be some limit to how close the atoms can be.
black holes are there i think but behind a black hole is there a new solar system. i dont know and if its there i think there's live too its strange if were the only planet with life
black holes are there i think but behind a black hole is there a new solar system. i dont know and if its there i think there's live too its strange if were the only planet with life
| s43ros wrote: |
| I have always been ineterested with black holes, but don't know all too much about them. What I have always wondered, is what would a small black hole that just appeared on earth, forget that this probably could never happen, look like. As it sucks in all light, would you just see black, and how large does the actual black hole get, theoretically it is infinitely small, but practically, that's impossible, there has to be some limit to how close the atoms can be. |
First of all, remember, the black hole used to be a star. (And a darned big one, in order to become a black hole.) I'm just assuming here, but I would think that a 'small' black hole would still be much larger than Earth.
As for how small a black hole can get... I suspect that there is enough stress on the atoms at least to break them into subatomic particles, possibly forming one extremely large atom. I suppose it's also possible that even the subatomic particles are crushed into their component strings.
As for what you would see should a black hole suddenly appear on Earth,
1) For the slightest instant (before the signal from your eyes reached your brain) you would see a black spot ringed by a peculiar warp of the light from beyond the hole.
2) You'd be instantly obliterated, along with everything from here to the moon.
3) Depending on the motion of the black hole, the positions of the planets and blind luck, some parts of our solar system may survive.
Great News!! Scientists just spotted a black hole on Uranus!
Some scientists are shy about sticking anything it though.
Some scientists are shy about sticking anything it though.
^That's not a black hole; that's a storm. If there was a black hole on Uranus, then Uranus would be sucked into it quite rapidly and our solar system would be orbiting it instead (including the sun; as a black hole must be more massive than the sun to be a black hole).
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As for them being cosmic vaccum cleaners sucking everything up; that's preposterous. Just because a star colapses onto itself dosn't mean that the star gains any mass! It still has the exact same gravity it had before it burned out. If there were any planets orbiting it that survived it's supernova, they would continue to orbit it normaly. The only thing that would make the black hole more dangerous than the star it once was would be that there is a slightly better chance of running into it without noticing it ahead of you. (assuming interstellar travel)
My question about black holes: Absolutely no energy excapes from a black hole right? Yet they certainly do absorb a lot of energy (via radiation from nearby (relitively) stars). Won't that energy eventualy build up enough to overcome even the extreme gravity of the black hole? |
First up black holes DO have a much greater gravitational force than the star that created it, this is because the stars mass is infact concentrated on a much much much smaller point and thus the gravitational force is greater than the same mass over a larger area. The only damnger is not just if you happen to crash...
As for the question about energy build up it has been determined/theorised by Stephen Hawking that black holes "dribble" they release certain types of radiation just outside of the Event Horizon.
^They can't have more gravitational force; they have the same mass. Sure, its more concentrated, but if our sun suddenly went to a black hole (Skipping the red giant and supernova periods and ignoring the fact that its too small), the Earth would still orbit it normaly. You don't have to get all complicated to figure that out; its simple (well, sorta simple) Newtonian physics.
Ok I will put a simple question to you then....
If a blackhole does not have a greater gravitational force then that of the preceeding star how is it that the preceeding star did not also prevent the escape of light?
Quite simply light does not escape from blackholes therefore its gravity MUST be greater than the star that it was formed from because the star DID emit light.
If a blackhole does not have a greater gravitational force then that of the preceeding star how is it that the preceeding star did not also prevent the escape of light?
Quite simply light does not escape from blackholes therefore its gravity MUST be greater than the star that it was formed from because the star DID emit light.
^Because the star is much larger than a black hole; it's gravity is spread out more.
The area in which the gravitation is strong enough to capture light would be smaller than the original star. (or else, the star would emit no light either). Anything outside the radius of the original star, however, would feel the same gravitation from the same mass. (Mass cannot possibly change significantly, and gravitational strength is based on mass)
Suppose the gravitational field of the star is represented by the funnel shape. The original star would have a wide and deep funnel, but with a wide hole (or to be more scientificly accurate, a flat spot) in the bottom. When the star turns into a black hole, the hole in the bottom gets a lot lower and a lot smaller, adding more funnel into the original hole. Light would only be captured at a certain depth on the funnel, which the original star did not reach before becoming a black hole. The only change in the gravitational field then, is the area within the original hole (or the radius of the star), so everything outside of that area remains the same.
The area in which the gravitation is strong enough to capture light would be smaller than the original star. (or else, the star would emit no light either). Anything outside the radius of the original star, however, would feel the same gravitation from the same mass. (Mass cannot possibly change significantly, and gravitational strength is based on mass)
Suppose the gravitational field of the star is represented by the funnel shape. The original star would have a wide and deep funnel, but with a wide hole (or to be more scientificly accurate, a flat spot) in the bottom. When the star turns into a black hole, the hole in the bottom gets a lot lower and a lot smaller, adding more funnel into the original hole. Light would only be captured at a certain depth on the funnel, which the original star did not reach before becoming a black hole. The only change in the gravitational field then, is the area within the original hole (or the radius of the star), so everything outside of that area remains the same.
Mass is not the only factor in gravitational force, and gravitational force has little to do with start emmiting light that come from the nuclear Fission reaction inside the star. The fact is that to bend light something must have and extremely large gravitational force and a star emits that light therefore has a lesser gravitational force than the blackhole.
By compressing the same mass on a much smaller spot the gravitational force of the blackhole is alot more than the same mass in the star spread over a larger area.
By compressing the same mass on a much smaller spot the gravitational force of the blackhole is alot more than the same mass in the star spread over a larger area.
| Rhysige wrote: |
|
By compressing the same mass on a much smaller spot the gravitational force of the blackhole is alot more than the same mass in the star spread over a larger area. |
That's at least close to what I said...
I'm going to create a poll about this on a more science-oriented forum and try to get some more opinions on this.
*Makes the poll*
You can find it here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5630.0
First of all scientist have proof of black holes because they see them in a telescope in space. I belive that they just suck you in them and then maybe you teleport to another deminsion. I also belive there are other worlds out there and people , alien like creatures living on the planets.
Glad to see we are sort of on the same page... or atleast in the same book. However with that larger gravitational force it would seriusly screw with the orbits of planets and most likely set them on collision courses (except perhaps some of the outer planets)
| Rhysige wrote: |
| Mass is not the only factor in gravitational force, and gravitational force has little to do with start emmiting light that come from the nuclear Fission reaction inside the star. The fact is that to bend light something must have and extremely large gravitational force and a star emits that light therefore has a lesser gravitational force than the blackhole.
By compressing the same mass on a much smaller spot the gravitational force of the blackhole is alot more than the same mass in the star spread over a larger area. |
This is not right. Once outside the event horizon the gravitational attraction of the BH is the same as a star with the same solar mass. Inside the EH then, yes, the attraction is outside that value.
Chris
| myspace wrote: |
| There are many popular myths concerning black holes, many of them perpetuated by Hollywood. Television and movies have portrayed them as time-traveling tunnels to another dimension, cosmic vacuum cleaners sucking up everything in sight, and so on. It can be said that black holes are really just the evolutionary end point of massive stars. But somehow, this simple explanation makes them no easier to understand or less mysterious. What do you guys think about them? |
Light is as all things affected by mass.
A black hole is pretty much just a lot of materia compressed into one huge ball wich has enough mass to even affect light.
Exactly how this works I have no idea... and no one have (yet).
I personally dont think black holes and warps to other places have anything to do with eachother.
what is the difference of wormhole and black hole...
black hole sucks in anything and everything within its reach... it is possibly for a planet's gravitational force to be bigger than a black hole and resist to be suck in.. any possibilities ??
other than that, inside the black hole, it is true that no principle exist...there is no time, volume and anything, so that means inside black hole, there is no dimension???also the matter sucks into the black hole can't just disappear into thin air, will it?? where have it gone??? to another "universe" as in the The Bubble Universe theory, there is multi universe and the universe is capable of self-creating....
is it true that the more matter suck in, the bigger the black hole get...
did black hole also suck in virtual exist thing like volume and time?? if yes, why in black hole there have no time and volume...
generally black hole suck in matter, what happen if it suck in a big mass of antimatter ??
if anyone know the answer, pls reply... thnx
sorry, if my facts if misunderstood and twisted from the original. Feel free to alter any mistake !!
black hole sucks in anything and everything within its reach... it is possibly for a planet's gravitational force to be bigger than a black hole and resist to be suck in.. any possibilities ??
other than that, inside the black hole, it is true that no principle exist...there is no time, volume and anything, so that means inside black hole, there is no dimension???also the matter sucks into the black hole can't just disappear into thin air, will it?? where have it gone??? to another "universe" as in the The Bubble Universe theory, there is multi universe and the universe is capable of self-creating....
is it true that the more matter suck in, the bigger the black hole get...
did black hole also suck in virtual exist thing like volume and time?? if yes, why in black hole there have no time and volume...
generally black hole suck in matter, what happen if it suck in a big mass of antimatter ??
if anyone know the answer, pls reply... thnx
sorry, if my facts if misunderstood and twisted from the original. Feel free to alter any mistake !!
| y06hci0088 wrote: |
| what is the difference of wormhole and black hole...
black hole sucks in anything and everything within its reach... it is possibly for a planet's gravitational force to be bigger than a black hole and resist to be suck in.. any possibilities ?? |
A black hole behaves exactly like the star that collapsed to form it. There is nothing magic or even unusual going to happen unless matter is dragged towards the event horizon. Otherwise it will have the same gravity as the star that formed it (roughly...disregarding matter lost during collapse).
| Quote: |
|
other than that, inside the black hole, it is true that no principle exist...there is no time, volume and anything, so that means inside black hole, there is no dimension???also the matter sucks into the black hole can't just disappear into thin air, will it?? where have it gone??? to another "universe" as in the The Bubble Universe theory, there is multi universe and the universe is capable of self-creating.... |
The black hole singularity is a very strange place. Time and space cease to exist in the normal sense - spacetime is actually 'infinitely curved'. Cause and effect break-down and we enter the world of 'quantum gravity'.
| Quote: |
|
is it true that the more matter suck in, the bigger the black hole get... |
Yes.
| Quote: |
|
did black hole also suck in virtual exist thing like volume and time?? if yes, why in black hole there have no time and volume... |
No...Black holes suck in matter just like any massive body does.
| Quote: |
|
generally black hole suck in matter, what happen if it suck in a big mass of antimatter ?? |
This is actually a complex question. Since nothing can escape the black hole, the energy produced when matter and antimatter collide cannot escape and will remain trapped. Essentially, then, the gravity of the BH will increase by the amount of antimatter. (Antimatter has mass just the same as matter does).
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
This is actually a complex question. Since nothing can escape the black hole, the energy produced when matter and antimatter collide cannot escape and will remain trapped. Essentially, then, the gravity of the BH will increase by the amount of antimatter. (Antimatter has mass just the same as matter does). Regards Chris |
Well, if the mass of antimatter was large enough (an anti-black hole?), wouldn't the antimatter eliminate enough mass to simultaneously reduce the black hole's gravity to nearly nothing and create prodigious amounts of energy? That might be the only way to destroy a black hole... It would also be the biggest explosion since the big bang...
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
Well, if the mass of antimatter was large enough (an anti-black hole?), wouldn't the antimatter eliminate enough mass to simultaneously reduce the black hole's gravity to nearly nothing and create prodigious amounts of energy? That might be the only way to destroy a black hole... It would also be the biggest explosion since the big bang... |
No...there is a common misconception that anti-matter is somehow negative mass or in some way fundamentally different in some such way. It's not the case. While it is true that the electric charge and a few other factors are opposite for antimatter and matter, when it comes to gravity, there is no difference.
Since we also know from e=mc*c that light is just energy and energy and mass are just two ways of looking at the same thing, and we know that light cannot escape the event horizon, then it follows that energy is retained and no actual mass is eliminated (or annihilated as I believe the physicists call it).
There would be no bang since nothing escapes the EH - in fact there would be nothing at all to see or hear.
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
No...there is a common misconception that anti-matter is somehow negative mass or in some way fundamentally different in some such way. It's not the case. While it is true that the electric charge and a few other factors are opposite for antimatter and matter, when it comes to gravity, there is no difference. Since we also know from e=mc*c that light is just energy and energy and mass are just two ways of looking at the same thing, and we know that light cannot escape the event horizon, then it follows that energy is retained and no actual mass is eliminated (or annihilated as I believe the physicists call it). There would be no bang since nothing escapes the EH - in fact there would be nothing at all to see or hear. Regards Chris |
i disagree - if it were somehow possible to suddenly eliminate the space-time curvature of a black hole, as ocalhoun is theorizing, you would get a spectacular explosion, no matter how you do it. For example if you could somehow make all gravity (gravitons) disappear, the black hole's matter would spring apart with phenomenal force. Or, even if you could somehow simply eliminate the matter/energy within the event horizon altogether (not via annihilation, but by another method), the accretion disk would explode outwards.
Of course, you can't do either of those things. If you had a black hole of a thousand solar masses made up of matter, and you tossed in a thousand solar masses of anti-matter, you don't end up with no black hole as you seem to think, ocalhoun - you end up with a black hole of two thousand solar masses.
So you say, "but won't the matter and anti-matter annihilate each other within the black hole?" Yes, they probably will. But what happens when you annihilate matter and anti-matter? You get photons (gamma rays), or probably mesons and bosons at higher velocities. Particle annihilation does not mean that things just "vanish". The mass-energy remains. And that mass-energy stays trapped within the black hole because none of its carriers can escape.
You just have to stretch your mind a little on what is actually matter, and remember that mass and energy are the same thing, really, as Bikerman says. Remember that light is moving photons, and moving photons do have mass. If you shine a flashlight at a black hole you are making it heavier.
| Indi wrote: |
|
i disagree - if it were somehow possible to suddenly eliminate the space-time curvature of a black hole, as ocalhoun is theorizing, you would get a spectacular explosion, no matter how you do it. For example if you could somehow make all gravity (gravitons) disappear, the black hole's matter would spring apart with phenomenal force. Or, even if you could somehow simply eliminate the matter/energy within the event horizon altogether (not via annihilation, but by another method), the accretion disk would explode outwards. |
I reckon you are pulling my leg here
I'm sure you agree that ocalhoun proposed annihilation via matter-antimatter interaction specifically, which is where I directed my response in specific.
I agree that if you could 'un-curve' the spacetime around the BH then you would indeed get a mighty big bang. You would, however, no longer be talking about a BH, since it would no longer have the Swartchild co-ords would no longer apply......
| Quote: |
|
Of course, you can't do either of those things. If you had a black hole of a thousand solar masses made up of matter, and you tossed in a thousand solar masses of anti-matter, you don't end up with no black hole as you seem to think, ocalhoun - you end up with a black hole of two thousand solar masses. |
I knew you knew, really. You were just testing to see if I read before replying
| Quote: |
|
You just have to stretch your mind a little on what is actually matter, and remember that mass and energy are the same thing, really, as Bikerman says. Remember that light is moving photons, and moving photons do have mass. If you shine a flashlight at a black hole you are making it heavier. |
I concur totally....it's a case of thinking in a different manner about mass and energy - it is the same thing differently experienced....
The real fun comes when you look closer at what happens when you cross the Event Horizon (theoretically of course). There is no complete concensus but most cosmologists seem to think that General Relativity will hold good and the predictions it makes will occur.
This essentially means a co-ordinate transformation of a weird sort (mathematically easy, experientially indescribable). The 3 spatial dimensions would become temporal dimensions and the temporal dimension would become the sole spatial dimension. This would mean that any timeline terminates in the singularity and therefore there is no chance for the observer to influence results as they cross the EH. Although they can 'wriggle' in the one remaining spatial dimension, the new geometry means that a stable orbit around the singularity, for example, is impossible.
This only holds for sure with non rotating BHs, since the solutions for rotating BHs is more complex and a different solution (at least 1) is possible from GR....
We are now well into the realms of Quantum Gravity, however, and I not only plead ignorance at this point (as usual) I now beg and whimper as well.....
Here's a nice paper for the non-scientist
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html
For a deeper discussion and links to academic papers on the subject I recommend the Physics forums :
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55806&highlight=quantum+gravity
Finally, here's a paper on Q-Gravity and the creation of a Euclidean world from first principles. It taxed me heavily to read, and some of it defeated me by 2 submissions and, in parts, total technical knock-out. However I found it interesting and quite a fun challenge....you need calculus to do anything with it...
http://camres.frih.net/resources/GeneralPhysics/qgrav-classical.htm
Regards
Chris
| Quote: |
| A black hole is a one way ticket to NOWHERE |
That's from a book I read called How to Build a Time Machine. In short, black holes are a small point of space that contains unimaginable amounts of mass. And since gravity slows time, there is an altitude on the black hole at which TIME STOPS. Once you go in, the rest of the universe will go on to oblivion and you won't notice.
| TheSublime wrote: | ||
That's from a book I read called How to Build a Time Machine. In short, black holes are a small point of space that contains unimaginable amounts of mass. And since gravity slows time, there is an altitude on the black hole at which TIME STOPS. Once you go in, the rest of the universe will go on to oblivion and you won't notice. |
Altitude ?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Altitude ? |
(Presumably the distance from the centre.)
 |