It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Inside a Black Hole

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 09:01 PM

It_is_an_undisputable_fact that the summerian's existed well before any monothiestic religion arose on earth. There story depicts a group of aliens creating us.

It is also a fact, the biblical flood is a complete rewrite from the account written by the sumerian's.

There are many other similarities between the summerian's account's and those from the bible.

If your god ~could~ preform any miracle he wanted to...then why not end all this nonsense debate over his existance? Your god want's all this worship, but give's nothing to worship.... Your god...isn't a person...he's a spirit that you can't see...

The ancient god's were considered to be real being...literally from the stars...

You'll never know if your god is real untill you don't assume he is...

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 09:19 PM
Oh yeah...Almost forgot...

I read some where that the hebrew's actually came from the summerian's...

posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 10:19 PM
Stephen Hawking has definite ideas on black hole thermodynamics. He binds thermodynamics, quantum theory and the general thery of relativity all into one neat package but, unfortunately, without any type of formal frame to link these three together, the results are difficult to assess.

The uncertainty principle dictates anti-particle and particle pairs created pairs from the vacuum ('borrowing' energy from the vacuum -chock FULL of energy itself- to do this, which borrowed energy must be repaid by the subsequent collision and annhilation of the particle pair in very short order) Arising inside but near the 'event horizon' of a given black hole particle pairs can undergo a peculiar happening.

The curvature at this point in the space-time continuum can separate the pair and may keep one particle bound inside the event horizon while the other escapes the gravitational clutches of the black hole. This allows a net energy loss from the black hole as there is no longer a pair of particle/anti-particle to collide and release the 'borrowed' energy back to the vacuum it arose from.

The resultant energy losses from these near-horizon events dictates that 'positive' energy is lost from the black hole and so 'negative' energy (the remaining particle) returns to the black hole, making the entire event, when viewed as an equation, equal to a net zero. Note that the terms 'positive' and 'negative' in this context do not indicate particle charge but only indicate loss or gain of energy itself.

That being said it is noted that a preponderence of anti-particles seem to escape from the black hole. This observation is dealt with in quite complicated quantum electromechanics.

So, given this theory by Lucasian Chair holder Hawking is valid, with enough time we see the ultimate demise of all black holes through the escape of one particle and retention of the other 'negative' energy particle, ad infinitum, until instability destroys the black hole itself.


posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 11:15 PM
My whole problem with that idea...

Virtual particle's already exist...kind of...

When a black hole grab's one of these pair's it gain's in mass.

Also, how does the black hole seemingly choose the negative particle? Something of this nature is impossible in the quantum world. Exactley where virtual particles come from...

In virtual particles, the positive is regular matter and the negative is anti-matter...How exactley does this bring about the demise of a black hole?

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 01:17 AM
Erm JM, I hope you are having a lend, otherwise bugger off back to the Relgion forums please.

Or give some proof of these 'miracles'.

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 08:11 AM
You all want proof! Look in the Bible, and other Holy Books. Or ask Truth. Kano, and JamesG I can see why you are like this cause you are aethists. But HL, I though you were Catholic. Anyway back to the frontline in the religion forum. You'll be sorry HL. Merry Chirstmas.

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 09:23 AM

Why look to the bible, when it's fact that some of it are stolen from older polythesitc source's? Even some of the monotheistic holiday's are stolen, from what I hear..

Why ask truth? He's nothing more thatn a fanatic who believe's this is the end time's. He quote's various part's of the bible that say so, yet none of them talk specificly of any event's now that would lead one to believe this.

And god himself in the bible said we'll never know...

As I also said...I read that the hebrew's came from the summerian's... If this is true...well don't take much to figure out what this implies...

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by High_Lord_Warrior
JM, who said i wanted to be saved. I'm a big boy. i can save myself. I don't need some big ol' powerful entity to "save" me. i'll take responsibility for my actions. And besides, you learn more from the almighty torment: loss.

James, I'll take care of this one for you. Jedi, I hope you realizae nothing is almighty. And I mean nothing. The time/space continuum is not effected by an entity whose ower is beyond and living beings. The belief in Him, though, is what effects the TSC. He has no more effect on the would than a mountain does.

It is the mere belief in a mighty and invisible being that gives the spur to action. And nowadays, your little "blind man sees" thing is meaningless. The bionic chip that allows visiblity in the eyes of the blind. So, not saying it'll be a bad thing when Christ comes again, but everythig he did back then will have been done by normal men. Your blind loyalty will be down the drain, because men will have done it.

And... you're being angry with me means.... what, exactly? Jeez, you hav no idea what you're talking about.

So being loyal to the true and only God is a bad thing? You have sealed your fate right here boy.

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 11:39 AM
ooooookay....JM, no idea where you invented that from....

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 01:39 PM

Why no argument's against mine? Don't have any?

posted on Dec, 24 2002 @ 05:34 PM
One thing James, I agrued with you alot in the religion forum, so theres not mouch to fight about anymore.

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 06:30 PM

posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 07:02 PM
Lets try this again...I posted without a message last time!

To answer your question about the virtual particles:

They come into existence from the 'nothing' and return to the 'nothing' constantly and everywhere in the universe, the 'nothing' being of course the vast energy field of space. The particles I was referring to arise INSIDE the event horizon of a black hole, so any particle escaping leaves the black hole and the resultant loss of energy 'borrowed' to produce the particle pair (1/2 the total energy borrowed) results in a net loss to the black hole of mass/energy.

The point is that the black hole eventually ends up with a cumulative energy loss due to the impossibility of the separated pair ever colliding (remember one particle escaped) to becoming pure energy again and returning the energy borrowed to produce the pair (mass) to the 'nothing'.

Again, I pointed out that my use of 'negative' didn't point to the charge of the particle left inside the event horizon but only to the fact that the black hole, after this escape event, was owed a particle to replace the one that escaped and so allow the collision of the created particle/anti-particle to bring the expended energy equation INSIDE the black hole again to a net zero.

As to the black hole keeping anti-particles from this event, as I pointed out, just the opposite seems to happen for the most part. Antiparticles seem to be the particle that escapes most of the time. Why? Advanced quantum electromechanics equations indicate this happens but are quite complicated to express and frankly beyond simple explaination.

Finally, the black hole theoretically becomes unstable due to countless events like this and explodes, for lack of a better word, releasing the terrible gravitational field hold it exerted on all mass inside its event horizon, and it again becomes spread out over vast areas of space as mattter/energy.

Hope this clears it up for you.


posted on Dec, 26 2002 @ 08:45 PM

"They come into existence from the 'nothing' and return to the 'nothing' constantly and everywhere in the universe, the 'nothing' being of course the vast energy field of space. The particles I was referring to arise INSIDE the event horizon of a black hole, so any particle escaping leaves the black hole and the resultant loss of energy 'borrowed' to produce the particle pair (1/2 the total energy borrowed) results in a net loss to the black hole of mass/energy. "

First of all, NOTHING can escape a blackhole, virtual or not. Once you hit the event horizen...kiss your a$$ goodbye.

And if you think about it... As you said, the virtual pair form WITHIN the event horizon. Now assuming all our thoeries about blackhole's are wrong, and one particle does escape, there is still NO loss, but a gain in mass. Look, you have two particles pop into existance from NOTHING, WITHIN the event horizon of the blackhole... WHAT did the blackhole lose??? Nothing, as both particles formed within the event horizon from NOTHING.

It ia already known, once your in the event horizon, you CANNOT escape it. Outside it, you have the chance, and so do the virtual particle's. Steven hawking's was wrong...I'm sorry. Apply logic to the problem. You don't lose anything, when what you lost was created from nothing.

"Finally, the black hole theoretically becomes unstable due to countless events like this and explodes, for lack of a better word, releasing the terrible gravitational field hold it exerted on all mass inside its event horizon, and it again becomes spread out over vast areas of space as mattter/energy."

Right, theoretically. And there has been no direct observation of such an event ever occuring. And such an event would require more power than the blackhole itself....

posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 06:01 PM
The event horizon for any given black hole is an ever changing, dynamic area that differs in strength of attraction for mass of varying size and energy from nano second to nano second due to changes in the mass/energy of the black hole itself.

An area of the event horizon that won't permit one size/energy particle to excape may permit another, higher size/energy particle to escape from the very same area at the very same instant. The event horizon cannot be correctly considered to be a 'sharp edge' from which, after matter/energy cannot escape. If it is to be considered an edge it has to be consicered one that has nearly infinite variations as to position and strength over incredibly small time instances. I do agree that at a certain point particles cannot escape the gravitational grip of a patent black hole. The particles I am referring to come to being from energy INSIDE that 'grey area' of gravitational grip from the fluctuating influence of the event horizon of the black hole. But due to that fluctuation particles can and do escape or radiate out.


posted on Dec, 27 2002 @ 10:58 PM

Either way, virtual particle's comming from nothing, or from the surrounding energy that exist's in space... The blackhole still lose's nothing.

If the virtual particle's come from the surrounding energy that was already there, then there was nothing to lose, but still something to gain. Logic boy... It's called damned logic.

Either way you look at it, forgetting what stephen hawkin's said, you still lose nothing and do gain something.

If it came from nothing, you lose nothing.

If the blackhole pulled the virtual particle's out of the zero point energy field that exist's all througout space, it still lost nothing.

What the hell is it losing?! Either way, it still gain's something, but I see no way it's losing a damned thing.

posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 07:25 PM
James, for sake of this particular discussion we are assuming that this black hole does not gain any more mass/energy from its gravitational pull after a certain point , are we not? Otherwise all bets are off.

I mean, this is a hypothetical situation created to allow us to question whether a black hole can lose energy/mass in the form of radiating particles. So we have to set parameters and one of them is the black hole in question does not gain any more mass/energy.

The question is: Is the black hole, given the above parameters, stable forever? Hawking claims not due to (his) reasons, some of which I gave in the past two posts.

We have to remember we are dealing with enormous amounts of time here. Given enough time all matter will eventually 'degrade' back into the energy it formed from. Some matter already captured by the black hole ultimately degrades back into energy also. And given these sources of energy the black hole WILL form anti-proton/proton pairs if the Uncertainty Principle is valid.

And if these particles come into being near enough to the event horizon one of the particles may escape. Do this enough times for a long enough period without input of matter or energy from outsice and you no longer have a black hole! Logical.

The energy AND the mass inside the black hole is held there by the black hole's enormous gravitational pull. It is part of the make-up of the black hole. It comprises part of the energy/mass make-up of the the black hole. To lose either energy or mass from the black hole means it is diminished. Logical

If you think that depleting the energy inside a black hole cannot ultimately lead to its demise then I would like to know how you reason that.


posted on Dec, 28 2002 @ 07:41 PM


If the blackhole stop's gaining mass after a certain period of time.... I still see the theory as flawed. The zero point energy field will alway's be here, even after all matter is gone (converted to energy). What happen's inside a blackhole is unclear, but I don't think matter falling into the blackhole will still be regular matter. It should be converted to energy. But, if it's converted to energy, it will remain forever trapped, as nothing can ever escape from a blackhole once it's in there.

Again, if the blackhole capture's a virtual particle pair outside it's event horizon, and capture's one particle and the other escape's, it is gaining a particle and not losing it. This is because the virtual particle's were already there in the ZPE field that exist everywhere. If the virtual pair is produced inside the event horizon, niether one can escape, unless all the theories about that aspect of blackhole's is copmpletly utterly wrong.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in