Was a GRB the first signs of a white hole?

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small Bangs
http://www.universetoday.com/85682/a...e-small-bangs/

On May 22, 7:14*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small Bangshttp://www.universetoday.com/85682/astronomy-without-a-telescope-smal...

If it were a white hole, it'd still be shining and there would be a
nebular forming around it.

Terrible idea. Moving on.

On 22/05/2011 2:07 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 22, 7:14 am, Yousuf wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small Bangshttp://www.universetoday.com/85682/astronomy-without-a-telescope-smal...

If it were a white hole, it'd still be shining and there would be a
nebular forming around it.

Terrible idea. Moving on.

Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

Yousuf Khan

On 5/22/11 7:42 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 22/05/2011 2:07 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 22, 7:14 am, Yousuf wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small
Bangshttp://www.universetoday.com/85682/astronomy-without-a-telescope-smal...


If it were a white hole, it'd still be shining and there would be a
nebular forming around it.

Terrible idea. Moving on.

Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

Yousuf Khan

There is nothing unstable about black holes--they are about as
consistent as one can imaging. Perhaps you are referring to the
environment *around* and in the *vacinity* of a black hole, which
varies depending of nearby gas.

There is no evidence that a black hole dumps its guts, not is
there a theory for such an entity.

On May 22, 5:42*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 22/05/2011 2:07 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 22, 7:14 am, Yousuf *wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small Bangshttp://www.universetoday.com/85682/astronomy-without-a-telescope-smal...

If it were a white hole, it'd still be shining and there would be a
nebular forming around it.

Terrible idea. Moving on.

Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

....what? The assumption is that the white hole is the endpoint of some
other black hole. That isn't going anyway anytime soon.

The idea is terrible. Move on.

Le 22/05/11 20:07, Eric Gisse a écrit :
On May 22, 7:14 am, Yousuf wrote:
Astronomy Without A Telescope – Small Bangshttp://www.universetoday.com/85682/astronomy-without-a-telescope-smal...

If it were a white hole, it'd still be shining and there would be a
nebular forming around it.

Terrible idea. Moving on.

All those GRB's are just the exhaust radiation from the
spaceships taking the curve at intergalactic 66 in the
direction of the galaxy center...

We see their warp drives for a few moments before they
just disappear into warp space.

:-)


P.S. I find that possibility less speculative than a "white hole"...

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/22/11 7:42 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

Yousuf Khan

There is nothing unstable about black holes--they are about as
consistent as one can imaging. Perhaps you are referring to the
environment *around* and in the *vacinity* of a black hole, which
varies depending of nearby gas.

There is no evidence that a black hole dumps its guts, not is
there a theory for such an entity.


Once again, you've demonstrated your outstanding reading comprehension
abilities. I said the white hole would be unstable, not the black hole,
i.e. "unlike a black hole".

Yousuf Khan

Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 22, 5:42 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

Yousuf Khan

...what? The assumption is that the white hole is the endpoint of some
other black hole. That isn't going anyway anytime soon.


Yes, but a white hole would be the end point of all points in time of a
black hole. That is to say, a black hole that exists for trillions of
years into the future would funnel out all its gathered contents since
its creation until its disappearance in the future, to a single white
hole in the past. Trillions of years of gathering done by a black hole,
a few tenths of a second of disgorging done by a white hole.

Yousuf Khan

On 5/23/11 11:56 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/22/11 7:42 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not necessarily, a white hole, unlike a black hole, would be unstable,
and it would destroy itself after dumping its entire guts all at once.

Yousuf Khan

There is nothing unstable about black holes--they are about as
consistent as one can imaging. Perhaps you are referring to the
environment *around* and in the *vacinity* of a black hole, which
varies depending of nearby gas.

There is no evidence that a black hole dumps its guts, not is
there a theory for such an entity.


Once again, you've demonstrated your outstanding reading comprehension
abilities. I said the white hole would be unstable, not the black hole,
i.e. "unlike a black hole".

Yousuf Khan


I read what you said, and I wondered if you were referring to regions
around *black hole* since there is no viable theory for "white holes".

On 23/05/2011 4:45 AM, jacob navia wrote:
All those GRB's are just the exhaust radiation from the
spaceships taking the curve at intergalactic 66 in the
direction of the galaxy center...

We see their warp drives for a few moments before they
just disappear into warp space.

:-)


P.S. I find that possibility less speculative than a "white hole"...

Well, regardless of our specific beliefs about this, it's worth some
entertainment value.

Yousuf Khan