| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ranyart
Infrared Wave
United Kingdom
353 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2002 : 01:11:39
How would you describe them?While your at it  Is there such a thing as Anti- White holes? and how would you describe them?  Life is a Song of Search
The Uni-verse Sings on high.
Alert Mentor now
|
TheoryWizard
Visible Light Wave
USA
764 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 03:21:47
eh, white holes are completely hypothetical at this point, we have yet to find any evidence what so ever of their existence. White holes are the anti-black hole, and visa-versa. There are a couple of types of black holes, but they all have the same effect, they all have an almost infinite gravitational attraction and suck in everything that gets close enough. White holes on the other hand, would possibly "spit out" matter, and have an almost infinite graviational repulsion. White holes were once thought to exist as the exit end of a black hole, although I don't know why they consider their existence considering that a black hole obvioulsy gets larger in a sense as it gobbles in more matter, which is a pretty darn good indication that it's sort of "holding" the matter inside."We in the back are all agreed that your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough!" - Niels Bohr
Alert Mentor now
|
doctorwoof
Infrared Wave
USA
262 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 14:57:21
I am not sure there is such a thing as gravitational repulsion. If gravity was both repulse/attract, something like E/M forces, that would mean there would be two kinds of mass, like +/-charge, N/S poles. You could consider matter/antim to be like that, but all matter, no matter if it's normal or anti, attract each other. There is no such thing as gravitational repulsion.
If gravity worked like that, the unified theory wouldn't be taking so long. It's cause of gravity's eccentricity, of having ONLY an attractive force, that is messing up the heroic efforts to unify."Logic is powerful. Physics is even better. A nice girlfriend is the best of all. Muhahaha!" "Okay, you stand there armed with your pen, and I'll go get my sword and let's see who is the mightier. Muhahaha!"
Alert Mentor now
|
TheoryWizard
Visible Light Wave
USA
764 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 18:23:13
quote:
I am not sure there is such a thing as gravitational repulsion
This of course is why I said hypothetical ;) This is how some scientists think bluesheets act though. "We in the back are all agreed that your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough!" - Niels Bohr
Alert Mentor now
|
Nebula
Visible Light Wave
USA
549 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 19:38:11
There is no such thing as an anti-black hole. When you say anti I am assuming you mean made out of anti-matter? A black hole made of anti-matter would have the same properties as a normal blackhole. quote:
There is no such thing as gravitational repulsion.
No such thing as anti-gravity!  How about this mass/energy warp spacetime cuasing it to fold in on it self, creating gravity. Consider somthing with negative energy density. The type of effects genertaed by the Casimir effect. Now imagine the Casimir effect blown up to a large scale. That would be a theoretical device for opening up wormholes, since wormholes theoretically collapses, thus some type of gravitational repulsion would be needed to "prop" one open.
-----------------------
Calculus and Alcohol don't mix. You should NEVER drink and derive! But if you must drink while doing Calculus find a Designated Deriver
Alert Mentor now
|
lbooda
Gamma Wave
USA
2030 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 20:23:01
Hawking showed a radiating (vs. absorbing) black hole to be equivalent to a white hole.The (Casimir effect) vacuum energy emulates gravitational repulsion, accelerating the universe outward at increasingly faster rates, as revealed by supernova redshift data. To "prop-up" a wormhole, how about an active rather than a static force, like a vacuum energy "beam"? See also the topic on "anti-singularity". http://www.quantumdream.net
A wake to imagination! {^,^}
Alert Mentor now
|
doctorwoof
Infrared Wave
USA
262 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 21:59:21
A black hole made of antimatter?? That would be bizarre...
It would keep sucking matter in and annihilating it, so its mass would eventually become negligeble and therefore have quite a short lifetime. Not to mention the money it could make, it costs like billions of $ to make a few grams of antimatter. Wow. Just send off a spacecraft and scoop some, sell it off the market for a few million per kilogram :D"Logic is powerful. Physics is even better. A nice girlfriend is the best of all. Muhahaha!" "Okay, you stand there armed with your pen, and I'll go get my sword and let's see who is the mightier. Muhahaha!"
Alert Mentor now
|
MacTech
Infrared Wave
USA
389 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 22:12:22
NO.. there can't be such thing cause we dont' know the physics for a singularity.. we don't know if the matter would be 'anti' so there can't be an anti-blackhole cause we don't know how the matter will "fall into place." Matter is killed in a singulatiry.. we dont' know if we could even call it matter.- Ben Hartig
Alert Mentor now
|
lbooda
Gamma Wave
USA
2030 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 23:21:47
MacTechquote:
Matter is killed in a singulatiry.. we dont' know if we could even call it matter.
I agree on the latter.Black holes have mass. Black holes are singularities. Mass is a property of matter. Thus singularities may consist of matter. http://www.quantumdream.net
A wake to imagination! {^,^}
Alert Mentor now
|
Sting1983
PF Mentor
USA
2836 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 00:07:52
Doesn't Hawking doubt the existence of singularities in black holes?As for the physics < = > singularity connection, all known laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." - Che Guevara
Alert Mentor now
|
doctorwoof
Infrared Wave
USA
262 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 03:25:18
Wait, you gotta remember that there are lots of approximations in physics. I think you sort of assume that black holes have infinite mass. Don't know for sure,, since I am but a lowly high school student (who has made it to semifinals for US Phys team, however, muhahaah I also love physics) and our school has no separate course that deals intensively on bholes. But I would think that is the case here. Everything else interacting with the bholes have negligible mass compared to the bhole, so we assume. Mass is not killed in a singularity, just so totally tiny and puny compared to the thing that ate it for lunch."Logic is powerful. Physics is even better. A nice girlfriend is the best of all. Muhahaha!" "Okay, you stand there armed with your pen, and I'll go get my sword and let's see who is the mightier. Muhahaha!"
Alert Mentor now
|
TheoryWizard
Visible Light Wave
USA
764 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 04:23:04
quote:
I think you sort of assume that black holes have infinite mass
No, but black holes theoretically can hold an infinite amount of mass. "We in the back are all agreed that your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough!" - Niels Bohr
Alert Mentor now
|
Jack
Micro Wave
USA
120 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 12:49:47
Also if blackholes have an infinite amount of gravity, mass, density then they must be spherical with equal gravitational force in every direction - so where is the "end" of a black hole? How can you (theoretically) pass through a black hole and come out the other side through a white (or anything else) hole? I, like many others, do not accept the consept of white holes as a different entity to black holes, I believe that they are one and the same. John "The Earth is all we have"
Alert Mentor now
|
Nebula
Visible Light Wave
USA
549 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2002 : 13:05:02
quote:
To "prop-up" a wormhole, how about an active rather than a static force, like a vacuum energy "beam"?
Not a bad idea...quote:
we dont' know
Exactly... Becuase quote:
As for the physics < = > singularity connection, all known laws of physics breakdown at the singularity.
And besides that the singularity is sheilded from all observation by the event horizon. No observation on the nature of the singularity can be made... quote:
No, but black holes theoretically can hold an infinite amount of mass.
Yeah Theoretically they could suck in an infinite amount of stuff, but only if the universe was infinite, so its really useless to talk about black holes having an infinite mass. Now they DO HAVE infinite density... quote:
Also if blackholes have an infinite amount of gravity, mass, density then they must be spherical with equal gravitational force in every direction - so where is the "end" of a black hole? How can you (theoretically) pass through a black hole and come out the other side through a white (or anything else) hole?
Black holes dont have infinite mass or gravity. Tidal gravitational forces increase as one approaches the singularity. But the laws of physics breakdown near the singularity and everything "blows up" towards infinity. Density is infinite since the singularity is technically a one dimensional point with a very very large mass. What do you mean by "end" of a black hole?-----------------------
Calculus and Alcohol don't mix. You should NEVER drink and derive! But if you must drink while doing Calculus find a Designated Deriver
Alert Mentor now
|
Amp
Visible Light Wave
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2002 : 17:10:00
Is it possible that singularities puncture space/time and come out in the huge voids that are being mapped currently. The voids appear to be expanding as though there were some repulsive(anti-gravitational) force pushing it out from the center regions. Could that be where the singularity pokes thru? I read that its negative energy causing the pressure behind the expansion. Peace AmpCY-We all must continually learn to unlearn much that we have learned and learn to learn that which we have not been taught only thus do we and our subject grow - R.D. Lang
Alert Mentor now
|
photon_girl
Radio Wave
United Kingdom
18 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 05:35:02
wouldn't that require antigravity? (as in antigravitons?)
I don't think they've even found gravitons yet^ - ^
Alert Mentor now
|
CJames
Visible Light Wave
USA
659 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2002 : 08:27:27
The existence of a repulsive form of gravity has a lot more basis now that the universe has been shown to be accelerating in its expansion, rather than decelerating. We can arrive at the same conclusion, however, by tweaking the cosmological constant.As for travel through black holes, to my knowledge it is impossible. The event horizons and all that form a sort of barrier. I'm fairly sure that only theoretical artificial wormholes have the ability to be traversed, because the natural tendancy of the spacetime "bridge" is to collapse, always collapsing before you can get across. "God does not play dice" --Einstein.
"Not only does God play dice, sometimes he throws them where we can't see them." -- S. Hawking
Alert Mentor now
|
emu
Radio Wave
Canada
87 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 03:52:18
There is still one possibility of travelling through the center of a black hole. All stars rotate on themselves. As they collapse, this spin is guranteed to be sped up greatly. If there is enough spin to counteract the crushing grravity, the blackhole will be in the shape of a spinning donut.
It's theoretically simply a matter(pun intended) of travelling along the axis through the donut. Although it needs to be big enough. Also, since it's spinning, it will be spinning rather irradically. The axis you must travelling along projects into 3d space and is continually pointing in a new direction.The question is? What is really happening in this so called, tear in fabric of space-time we call a black hole. Where's the beef?
Alert Mentor now
|
schwartzchildradius999
X-Ray Wave
USA
1857 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 07:59:02
A white hole, if it spews and repels, must be made of negative matter? Thing is though, -m repells everything, -m and m included, if it exists. A -m white hole then would not be stable, and would fly apart instantly. Barring electromagnetic interactions, -m would spread out as thinly as possible throughout deep space, but collect near large +masses. Are we missing something? Is -m the machinery behind accelerating space and gravity>?"I don't care about his character" Clinton 1992 debates
Alert Mentor now
|
Ranyart
Infrared Wave
United Kingdom
353 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2002 : 15:39:30
quote:
Originally posted by schwartzchildradius999:
A white hole, if it spews and repels, must be made of negative matter? Thing is though, -m repells everything, -m and m included, if it exists. A -m white hole then would not be stable, and would fly apart instantly. Barring electromagnetic interactions, -m would spread out as thinly as possible throughout deep space, but collect near large +masses. Are we missing something? Is -m the machinery behind accelerating space and gravity>?"I don't care about his character" Clinton 1992 debates
A white Hole IS the energy that is our SUN. Gravity slows down time..repulsive gravity speeds time up. If we take gravity as being something other than what we believe it to be, say as a time-signature of distance, a lot can be explained.
quote:
Originally posted by schwartzchildradius999:
A white hole, if it spews and repels, must be made of negative matter?
Negative Time would be most appropiate, spacetime is the primery product of the universe,Gravity follows this wherever matter is within spacetime, its not the other way around. The whole premice of gravity can be seen as the decay products of matter in accelerating or de-accelerated spacetimes. A atom that decays and has an half-life of twenty minutes at a lab on the Earth's surface is really just a time-signature of the balance of repulsive gravity and attractive gravity, it can be sloted into the 'time-period-table' of elements,this is devised here on Earth for the purpose of our undersdtanding. Now take the same atom and take it to a far away point in space, one that has no, or nearly no energy, a 'ZERO POINT' you will discover that the atom no longer has a twenty-minute half-life! the period of decay has shortend significantly, infact the period has all but dissapeared as the atom is ripped apart, by the very space it now is within, space-expansion is the repulsive gravity that tears open atoms that are far from other rest point energies. 'Open' spaces are expanding faster than 'closed' spaces. Gravity slows down the period of observation 'TIME'
Repulsive Gravity speeds up 'Time' of the frame in question, decay process. The effect of this can be seen more intensly where Gravity slowed time is maximised at a BLACKHOLE, and where it is intensly speeded up at a WHITEHOLE, which is what our SUN and STARS are...whitholes in the sky! Stars are the decay products of Blackholes, as I have stated before, its not that Stars create blackholes? its the other way around! Life is a Song of Search
The Uni-verse Sings on high.
Alert Mentor now
|
schwartzchildradius999
X-Ray Wave
USA
1857 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 01:47:44
Wow, that sounds like a rather unconventional view. Wouldn't it mean though that the sun is moving backwards in time? Why then to auroral activities take place after a solar flare, and not before??
Alert Mentor now
|
