super massive black hole

OG I thought some one would bring in Hawkings BH decay. You have posted
"near" the event horizon. That has to be on the universe side(outer
side) Not coming out from inside the BH. Nothing can escape once inside.
BH have to be absorbing space energy. You pointed this out OG when you
had Hawkings separating the space outside the event horizon separating
real particles from their virtual twins. I have always taken issue with
BH evaporation. The reason is. That it would take a BH with the mass
of 30 suns 10^61 times the current age of the universe to completely
evaporate. That is 10 followed by 60 zeros. (give me a breaK) A super
massive BH has a mass of 2.6 million suns,and my thoughts are it should
evaporate (if per chance there is BH evaporation) at the same rate
because of the great increase of size of its event horizon. Our Milky
Way BH is about the same size as Mercury"s orbit. Bert

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:50:13 -0500 (EST),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Nothing can escape once inside.
BH
The processes inside a BH aren't known with any certainty. lot of
speculation. But recent observations show violent jets of energy and
possibly particles emerging from BHs

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:50:13 -0500 (EST),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Nothing can escape once inside.
BH
The processes inside a BH aren't known with any certainty. lot of
speculation. But recent observations show violent jets of energy and
possibly particles emerging from BHs

No. The particles and jets are assumed to be emerging from the regions
of violently heated gas near the event horizon, but outside it. Even
Hawking radiation comes from outside the horizon.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
OG I thought some one would bring in Hawkings BH decay.
snipped
I have always taken issue with
BH evaporation. The reason is. That it would take a BH with the mass
of 30 suns 10^61 times the current age of the universe to completely
evaporate. That is 10 followed by 60 zeros. (give me a breaK) A super
massive BH has a mass of 2.6 million suns,and my thoughts are it should
evaporate (if per chance there is BH evaporation) at the same rate
because of the great increase of size of its event horizon. Our Milky
Way BH is about the same size as Mercury"s orbit. Bert

Of course you are right. In terms of super massive BHs then the decay time
is measured in huge multiples of the age of the universe.

However, it has been suggested that planet-mass BHs may have been formed at
the creation, and these would have decay times comparable to the age of the
universe. Your comment about not having heard of BH 'decay', led to my
posting. But clearly you knew about the theory already.

OG Yes I have read about and thought about blackholes for a long time.
Outside the event horizon Hawking radiation(very feeble) is taken place.
OG there has to be a great glow to the accretion disc ,for the disc
could be matter that is in the state of plasma (very hot) It circles and
spirals into the event horizon. In my view it is now changing into
another phase a phase(physical condition) never before seen in our
universe,because its space and time has been taken away from it. This
plasma went from very hot,to very cold instantly. It went from 10
million times hotter than the surface of the sun to the temperature of
inside the blackhole,and that is as close to absolute zero that nature
will allow. I predict that the x-ray images that are now 50 times more
detailed(thanks to Chandra) will show more accretion disc and that means
more blacholes. Bert

The larger the galaxy the larger the black hole at its center.


wrote:
is it true that every galaxy has one?

Hans:

What is the nonsense of the color "black", which absorbs light, and is
an inertial mass that apparently radiates the existents that cause
gravitational attraction, and, also, the concept of a "hole" which
implies that there is a nothingness or void which has no substance
within it. There is something wrong with that name.

What comic cartoon physicist came up with that stupidity, "black hole".

That implies that there is a non-radiating nothing at the specified
locations. That is a post-modernist contradiction in terms if I ever
heard one.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate and more scientific to say that there
may be a massive ultra-dense entity, or UDE, at certain locations?

If the "black hole" namer has tenure, perhaps that university should
have a closer look. The name, black hole, is a contradiction in terms.

Ralph Hertle





Hans wrote:
The larger the galaxy the larger the black hole at its center.


wrote:

is it true that every galaxy has one?

In message , Ralph Hertle
writes
Hans:

What is the nonsense of the color "black", which absorbs light, and is
an inertial mass that apparently radiates the existents that cause
gravitational attraction,


For about the thousandth time, there are no "existents that cause
gravitational attraction".

and, also, the concept of a "hole" which implies that there is a
nothingness or void which has no substance within it. There is
something wrong with that name.

What comic cartoon physicist came up with that stupidity, "black hole".


I can't be bothered to find out for you, but the phrase "black hole" is
endorsed by physicists of the class of Stephen Hawking. The Russians
prefer another phrase because "black hole" means something very rude in
Russian.

That implies that there is a non-radiating nothing at the specified
locations. That is a post-modernist contradiction in terms if I ever
heard one.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate and more scientific to say that there
may be a massive ultra-dense entity, or UDE, at certain locations?

Some real physicists (which you are definitely not, despite your
pseudoscientific language) do believe there is a real physical entity
there. But the idea that it is just a property of space-time seems to
have merit.
Enough.
Plonk.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Hans Black is not a color.The cartoon physicist that named it was
"John Wheeler"(i think he is still alive?) Physicists don't ague with
Wheeler. I wonder what happens to quarks and gluons when passing
through the event horizon? My own theory has the strong force,as a
modification(face of) of gravity. Could we call a BH a quark hole? (QH)
Hole fits well. Could we think of a blackhole as having only three
dimensions(since it took time away)? Could we think of it having extra
dimensions since it has a gravity tunnel that can enter other universes
(kip Thorne) I sometimes think of blackholes as putty,and I can mold it
into any thing that comes to mind. Bert PS One more question.
What holds the BH up?

Ralph, For a great example of a black hole... look in a mirror!


Ralph Hertle wrote:
Hans:

What is the nonsense of the color "black", which absorbs light, and is
an inertial mass that apparently radiates the existents that cause
gravitational attraction, and, also, the concept of a "hole" which
implies that there is a nothingness or void which has no substance
within it. There is something wrong with that name.

What comic cartoon physicist came up with that stupidity, "black hole".

That implies that there is a non-radiating nothing at the specified
locations. That is a post-modernist contradiction in terms if I ever
heard one.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate and more scientific to say that there
may be a massive ultra-dense entity, or UDE, at certain locations?

If the "black hole" namer has tenure, perhaps that university should
have a closer look. The name, black hole, is a contradiction in terms.

Ralph Hertle





Hans wrote:

The larger the galaxy the larger the black hole at its center.


wrote:

is it true that every galaxy has one?