Big Bang expansion?

[therealsylvos]

There is something i dont understand about the big bang theory. A black hole is a star that is so huge and so dense that nothing can leave it not even light. so now that we know this how is it possible that this tiny infetesimal 10 dimensional dot that contains the entire universe in it, to expand???? it should remain totally contracted?

[Altarus]

If our universe collided with another one, that collision might provide enough energy to expand the universe. That is an actual theory. However, no tested theory exists that explains how the Big Bang started.

[therealsylvos]

At 1/30/06 08:27 PM, Wyrlum wrote: If our universe collided with another one, that collision might provide enough energy to expand the universe. That is an actual theory. However, no tested theory exists that explains how the Big Bang started.

No you misunderstood my problem. starting the expansion is not actually that but it,s something similiar. but if something like a dense star wich is HUGE doesnt let anything out including light, then how could something infinitly more dense than let anything out?

[GunCrave]

No offense to the topic creator, but his understanding of black holes is extremely flawed. Let me explain how one is created, whenever a huge red star, for example, Betelguese, (which is over 22 times the size of our sun) or a blue-white star like Sirius, collapses in upon itself because it has exhausted it's amount of hydrogen or other elements after years and years of burning, it creates what is commonly referred to by astronomers as "supernovas." Basically these things give off more energy in ten minutes then the amount of energy earth has received in nine thousands years from the sun. When these things simmer down sometimes, rarely, a dwarf star is created. These stars are smaller then Pluto, but a two ounce spoon of it's matter is equivalent to three metric tons on earth. So you can imagine how strong it's gravity is regarding pull; however, they're other types of dwarfs stars, sometimes they'll: themselves will be crushed under it's own force to create a black hole. Black holes are not big, infact, it is theorized that black holes are the only things in the universe that have zero dimensions. The reason it sucks light up and time is because the gravitational pull it exerts is so strong able to disrupt even these two concepts of their medians.

But in short, no, black holes do not do anything other than crush anything it absorbs down to the sub-atomic level. The only people who say otherwise are trying to either bullshit you or sell you their book.
It's been many years since I learned about this from general science, so forgive me if some of what I have typed is inaccurate.

[Gunter45]

At 1/30/06 08:51 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: Black holes are not big, infact, it is theorized that black holes are the only things in the universe that have zero dimensions.

Didn't Stephen Hawking calculate the volume of a black hole? it has something to do with integrating something along a 1/x type of slope. I remember that from Differential and Integral Calculus like a year and a half ago.

[The-Dran]

Because when when it contains more mass than it's density it will implode, that's how.

[therealsylvos]

At 1/30/06 08:51 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: No offense to the topic creator, but his understanding of black holes is extremely flawed. Let me explain how one is created, whenever a huge red star, for example, Betelguese, (which is over 22 times the size of our sun) or a blue-white star like Sirius, collapses in upon itself because it has exhausted it's amount of hydrogen or other elements after years and years of burning, it creates what is commonly referred to by astronomers as "supernovas." Basically these things give off more energy in ten minutes then the amount of energy earth has received in nine thousands years from the sun. When these things simmer down sometimes, rarely, a dwarf star is created. These stars are smaller then Pluto, but a two ounce spoon of it's matter is equivalent to three metric tons on earth. So you can imagine how strong it's gravity is regarding pull; however, they're other types of dwarfs stars, sometimes they'll: themselves will be crushed under it's own force to create a black hole. Black holes are not big, infact, it is theorized that black holes are the only things in the universe that have zero dimensions. The reason it sucks light up and time is because the gravitational pull it exerts is so strong able to disrupt even these two concepts of their medians.

But in short, no, black holes do not do anything other than crush anything it absorbs down to the sub-atomic level. The only people who say otherwise are trying to either bullshit you or sell you their book.
It's been many years since I learned about this from general science, so forgive me if some of what I have typed is inaccurate.

That is not what i read. For example, if you compressed the Sun to a radius of three kilometers, about four millionths of its present size, it would become a black hole.
Source now if the sun in three kilometers what about the Universe in something you cant see without a microscope

[GunCrave]

At 1/30/06 08:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 1/30/06 08:51 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: Black holes are not big, infact, it is theorized that black holes are the only things in the universe that have zero dimensions.

Didn't Stephen Hawking calculate the volume of a black hole? it has something to do with integrating something along a 1/x type of slope. I remember that from Differential and Integral Calculus like a year and a half ago.

Most scientists are content to believe it has zero deminsions. Also, it wasn't about black holes, it was about alittle something different called worm holes. But combinding variables will avail you little if we have a limited understanding of this subject. The reason being, we have yet to scratch the surface of the black hole issue, it is impossible for us to measure it's exact magnitude considering, well, it will consume even radio frequencies, so there is no way to know it's imput and output, which would help determine it's mass in a small way. All we do know is it's field of reach and what it can affect.
Well, I'm going off on an irrelevant tangent now so fuck what I have to say.

[Gunter45]

At 1/30/06 09:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: Because when when it contains more mass than it's density it will implode, that's how.

You know, since density is a quotient of mass divided by volume, everything has more mass than volume, numerically speaking.

[The-Dran]

True, but when it's mass becomes to much for it's density to contain it will unleash.

It's hard to understand the subject, because we are talking about using time and other dimensions, not the typical three we are use to when refering to explosions.

[GunCrave]

At 1/30/06 09:05 PM, therealsylvos wrote: That is not what i read. For example, if you compressed the Sun to a radius of three kilometers, about four millionths of its present size, it would become a black hole.
Source now if the sun in three kilometers what about the Universe in something you cant see without a microscope

Good read, but I was merely giving examples of how one is created. They're essentially three types of prime stars, so I'm sure they have their own ways of creating black holes.

[The-Dran]

We've never encounter the creation of a blackhole so we don't know exactly and specifically what happens.

[Donnington]

To takle the orginal quirry the singularirty at the beginning of the univers is under emence pressure not only from its on gravity but from its heat, as such it was quite unstable. The theory of multipul universes on 'membrains' state that two realitys can colide. That coupled with the singularities already volitile nature could create 'the big bang'.

As for blackholes, Steven Hawking as recently (in the past year at least) changed his mind on the subject and now believes them to be (quote) 'Fuzzy balls'.
This is beacuse particles do escapse blackholes. Over time all that has entered them is eventualy flicked outwards and thus comes the death of a fuzzy black ball.

[sdhonda]

Dont black holes also emit things like X-rays. I thought thats how they detected them (except that one time they saw one pass between a star).

[GunCrave]

At 1/30/06 09:17 PM, Dranigus wrote: We've never encounter the creation of a blackhole so we don't know exactly and specifically what happens.

EXACTLY!

[therealsylvos]

At 1/30/06 09:38 PM, sdhonda wrote: Dont black holes also emit things like X-rays. I thought thats how they detected them (except that one time they saw one pass between a star).

they have never detected black holes they are pure theory.

[mjairlax]

No you misunderstood my problem. starting the expansion is not actually that but it,s something similiar. but if something like a dense star wich is HUGE doesnt let anything out including light, then how could something infinitly more dense than let anything out?

A black hole is eventually stops existing through "Hawking Radiation"

[sdhonda]

At 1/30/06 09:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 1/30/06 09:38 PM, sdhonda wrote: Dont black holes also emit things like X-rays. I thought thats how they detected them (except that one time they saw one pass between a star).

they have never detected black holes they are pure theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

[GunCrave]

At 1/30/06 09:38 PM, sdhonda wrote: Dont black holes also emit things like X-rays. I thought thats how they detected them (except that one time they saw one pass between a star).

Sorry for double posting all, anyways, that may be true, but from what I know they discovered this phonomena accidently, when an astronomer had been watching a quasar for several months with a radio telescope he was no longer able to detect it from the coordinates he put in. The radio waves were no longer reaching earth and where once a star had been it was gone. So he put 2 and 2 together and decided something was impeding his view of the quasar. That was how the black hole theory was born, or at least what I heard.

[therealsylvos]

At 1/30/06 09:45 PM, sdhonda wrote:

At 1/30/06 09:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 1/30/06 09:38 PM, sdhonda wrote: Dont black holes also emit things like X-rays. I thought thats how they detected them (except that one time they saw one pass between a star).

they have never detected black holes they are pure theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

No you see this isnt proof. this is something we couldnt explain. we believe that it is a black whole but its not proven there is evidence but not 100% proof.(sorry but once you take 10th grade math you never look at proof the same way)

[Ravens-Grin]

I thought the Black Hole theory came about in the trenches of World War 1? An artilleryman I believe, in between his calculations of the next shot, was messing around with Einstein's theories. What he did was question what would happen if mass was infinite at one particular point according to Einstein's theories, how would time warp, as well as gravity. He then came to the conclusion that black holes could possibly exist, and nowadays we have implicitly proved their existence through a variety of ways. I'm going to stop rambling now and let you guys look all of this junk on google.

[iangb]

At 1/30/06 09:37 PM, Donnington wrote: As for blackholes, Steven Hawking as recently (in the past year at least) changed his mind on the subject and now believes them to be (quote) 'Fuzzy balls'.
This is beacuse particles do escapse blackholes. Over time all that has entered them is eventualy flicked outwards and thus comes the death of a fuzzy black ball.

Something like that...
OK, basic facts. Black holes have an 'event horizon' - the point of no return. Anything crossing this point will go into the hole, like it or not.

Quite often, particle/antiparticle pairs are created, at random, in space (as in the dimension space, not the place space). Thes normally last for a fraction of a second: the particle/antiparticle annialate each other very fast. When the pair are created, they are initially moving in equal and opposite directions, because of momentum conservation.

Sometimes (rarely, but it does happen), a particle/antiparticle pair is created on the event horizon. One of the pair is sucked into the hole, and the other one carries on into space. Because one half of the pair is in the 'hole, the remaining particle is not annialated and carries on going.

Wierd....

(taken (and reworded badly) from 'The Elegant Universe', by Briane Greene)