Black Hole

[oragans]

There was an episode where we witnessed a blackwhole now don't blackwholes just keep on growing and growing and start sucking up the whole galaxy or am i wrong in this.

[Sebilrazen]

There was an episode where we witnessed a blackwhole now don't blackwholes just keep on growing and growing and start sucking up the whole galaxy or am i wrong in this.

Wrong. Blackholes absorb matter, light in their vicinity. Super massive black holes, the theoretical ones that form the center of large galaxies, are massive, but their 'destructive' range is governed by numerous variables including incidental angular velocitys, distance from the event horizon, and lots more.

[DavidNetk]

Super massive black holes, the theoretical ones that form the center of large galaxies, are massive, but their 'destructive' range is governed by numerous variables including incidental angular velocitys, distance from the event horizon, and lots more.

Hi, I just watched a documentary on super massive black holes on the Science Channel two days ago. They concluded that after studying hundreds of galaxy, what seemed to be as unusual super massive black holes, were actually part of the nature of ALL galaxies in the universe.

They said that all galaxies had a super massive black hole and that the size of the it was always half of a percent of the total mass of the galaxy (0.5%?).

I bring this up because you said "the theoretical ones," but according to 'The Nukers' - a group of physicist - they said that every galaxy has one, even ours! And they were speaking as if it was a fact. So I was wondering if you had more recent information about them being theoretical or is it that last time you heard of them they were still in that stage?

Let me know, cheers!

[Sebilrazen]

Hi, I just watched a documentary on super massive black holes on the Science Channel two days ago. They concluded that after studying hundreds of galaxy, what seemed to be as unusual super massive black holes, were actually part of the nature of ALL galaxies in the universe.

They said that all galaxies had a super massive black hole and that the size of the it was always half of a percent of the total mass of the galaxy (0.5%?).

I bring this up because you said "the theoretical ones," but according to 'The Nukers' - a group of physicist - they said that every galaxy has one, even ours! And they were speaking as if it was a fact. So I was wondering if you had more recent information about them being theoretical or is it that last time you heard of them they were still in that stage?

Let me know, cheers!

I just used 'theoretical' because I believe there is still a fair bit of descent among the astronomical community whether all galactic cores are radially tied to a single 'primordial' blackhole, or whether some galaxies follow the 'swarm only model' basically this without the the super massive central one.

I'm of the opinion though that yes, each galactic core has at least 1 super massive black hole.

[DavidNetk]

I just used 'theoretical' because I believe there is still a fair bit of descent among the astronomical community whether all galactic cores are radially tied to a single 'primordial' blackhole, or whether some galaxies follow the 'swarm only model' basically this without the the super massive central one.

I'm of the opinion though that yes, each galactic core has at least 1 super massive black hole.

Thanks for clarifying Sebilrazen.

[Tain]

Technically, black holes are an infinitely small point of ridiculous mass and gravity, so being infinitely small i don't think it would be getting physically bigger. Just more massive. Strange things those are.

[Sebilrazen]

Technically, black holes are an infinitely small point of ridiculous mass and gravity, so being infinitely small i don't think it would be getting physically bigger. Just more massive. Strange things those are.

Now that is theoretical, the 'singularity', which lies within the 'horizon' has been surmised to be many things - quantum foam, muons, or an even smaller, unknown particulate. The infintesmal portion people refer to is generally accepted as 'infinite curvature' of the surrounding spacetime. To an observer, provided it was possible to observe a 'naked' singularity, that is horizonless and unobstructed by a accretion disk, the black hole itself could be the diameter of our entire solar system, but due to its non reflective nature and self occlusion it would appear as a single point. Similar science of occlusion is being used for the next gen stealth technology

[Darth Buddha]

Now I'm glad somebody brought up that episode, because the one thing that bothered me was the idea that when the small partner star went nova, that's when the trouble started.

WRONG.

The collapse of the star didn't increase the mass, nor did it increase the gravity of that mass. The black hole shouldn't have pulled anything into it that the star didn't... or at least not until it consumed a lot more mass from it's giant companion.

The event horizon of the black hole should have been well within the diameter of the star (i.e. very small), the effects on the planet of the black hole should have been minimal.

Now the real problem should have been the star going nova in the first place!

The shockwaves should have flattenend the planet. In other words... the science was baked!

[alz0rz]

Now I'm glad somebody brought up that episode, because the one thing that bothered me was the idea that when the small partner star went nova, that's when the trouble started.

WRONG.

The collapse of the star didn't increase the mass, nor did it increase the gravity of that mass. The black whole shouldn't have pulled anything into it that the star didn't... or at least not until it consumed a lot more mass from it's giant companion.

The event horizon of the black hole should have been well within the diameter of the star (i.e. very small), the effects on the planet of the black hole should have been minimal.

Now the real problem should have been the star going nova in the first place!

The shockwaves should have flattenend the planet. In other words... the science was baked!

Completely agreed - alot of the science in that episode was stretched out. But they most likely did that to make the general audience understand what was happening.

Either way, we know the truth!

[Erik Bloodaxe]

Now I'm glad somebody brought up that episode, because the one thing that bothered me was the idea that when the small partner star went nova, that's when the trouble started.

WRONG.

The collapse of the star didn't increase the mass, nor did it increase the gravity of that mass. The black whole shouldn't have pulled anything into it that the star didn't... or at least not until it consumed a lot more mass from it's giant companion.

The event horizon of the black hole should have been well within the diameter of the star (i.e. very small), the effects on the planet of the black hole should have been minimal.

Now the real problem should have been the star going nova in the first place!

The shockwaves should have flattenend the planet. In other words... the science was baked!

I prefer to think that what we saw at the beginning of the episode wasn't the supernova at all (and it is supernova, since a regular ol' nova doesn't result in a black hole ), because it didn't even look like a supernova at all. Thing is, it's already sucking in the mass of the star, and that little shockwave of energy was nowhere near massive enough to have represented a supernova. I figure it was a misrepresentation of either the continual formation of an accretion disk or more unlikely some sort of pulse of energy, but that does still leave the problem of the planet. The only way I can think of (well, most likely possibility I can think of, actually ) to rectify that is the suggestion that maybe this planet was actually the moon of some more distant gas giant (and right now I really hope Carter didn't make some comment to contradict that; memory's foggy right now). I prefer this view of what that was in the opener, because it's a bit more minor an error in comparison. Still, aside from that, the rest of the episode was at least written pretty well.

-Bloodaxe

[American3.141592654]

I prefer to think that what we saw at the beginning of the episode wasn't the supernova at all (and it is supernova, since a regular ol' nova doesn't result in a black hole ), because it didn't even look like a supernova at all. Thing is, it's already sucking in the mass of the star, and that little shockwave of energy was nowhere near massive enough to have represented a supernova. I figure it was a misrepresentation of either the continual formation of an accretion disk or more unlikely some sort of pulse of energy, but that does still leave the problem of the planet. The only way I can think of (well, most likely possibility I can think of, actually ) to rectify that is the suggestion that maybe this planet was actually the moon of some more distant gas giant (and right now I really hope Carter didn't make some comment to contradict that; memory's foggy right now). I prefer this view of what that was in the opener, because it's a bit more minor an error in comparison. Still, aside from that, the rest of the episode was at least written pretty well.

-Bloodaxe

I still prefer to think that the wave might be an optical illusion that was conceived of by the people doing the special effects for the show resulting in the massive compression of space time preceeding the disc but I'm not sure what scientific basis there would be for that so much other than it looked cool.

Sometimes things are done cause they look cool, after all they don't always have to just portray what is going on in the show but give some special effects stuff that would be expected by the audience. Lets consider how many guns they have that blast the living heck out of aliens, when the bullets hitting a gooey carbon based life form doesn't really have all that much push but punches a hole which is how the damage is done after all... It's actually a hollywood myth that bullets throw a body back but in the show they still have gun shots doing that cause it's what the audiance expect. Now I do respect when things are represented accurately but perhaps that wave was just done so that there was something the audiance would think looked cool as a means of representing the compression of space time preceeding the blackhole which is what was a big plot twist in the episode cause the distortion of space time did preceed the gravity influencing the gate and not following which would be intuitively expected... Anyway, just my two cents... Sorry I should bottom line it... Basically bottom line I think it's an artistic representation of the preceeding effect of the time distortion later discussed in the show.

[Erik Bloodaxe]

I still prefer to think that the wave might be an optical illusion that was conceived of by the people doing the special effects for the show resulting in the massive compression of space time preceeding the disc but I'm not sure what scientific basis there would be for that so much other than it looked cool.

Sometimes things are done cause they look cool, after all they don't always have to just portray what is going on in the show but give some special effects stuff that would be expected by the audience. Lets consider how many guns they have that blast the living heck out of aliens, when the bullets hitting a gooey carbon based life form doesn't really have all that much push but punches a hole which is how the damage is done after all... It's actually a hollywood myth that bullets throw a body back but in the show they still have gun shots doing that cause it's what the audiance expect. Now I do respect when things are represented accurately but perhaps that wave was just done so that there was something the audiance would think looked cool as a means of representing the compression of space time preceeding the blackhole which is what was a big plot twist in the episode cause the distortion of space time did preceed the gravity influencing the gate and not following which would be intuitively expected... Anyway, just my two cents... Sorry I should bottom line it... Basically bottom line I think it's an artistic representation of the preceeding effect of the time distortion later discussed in the show.

That... makes much more sense, actually. Except that I thought the extreme time dilation preceding the gravity was a side effect of transfering through the wormhole. Wait, what about gravity waves? They might have the same effect (well, they wouldn't be a constant source of gravity, just a ripple, so maybe they wouldn't rip you apart ), and also could be represented in such a way. Except they should come from colliding black holes, actually. Well, Black Holes and Time Warps says their main source is the motion of such massive bodies, so maybe that black hole in motion and tugging that star w/ it is enough to cause some very minor ones. Or maybe that artist jumped the gun w/ that representation a little, and the intent of the writer was to have it be a side effect of the wormhole all along.

-Bloodaxe

[DelTrax1]

I know this........they seem to be every where......and there name is Amy. Stop taking my matter!!!!!

[oragans]

Thanks People i was just wondering because are watched the Peacekeeper wars i thought that episode but you have cleared that up.

[Master Chief Jack O Niell]

Is there a way to destroy blackholes?