*woohoo* (marcia, do you think we should copy and paste the relevant parts of our discussion on black holes here?)

Yes! I was just thinking of suggesting it. Please do so, Wolfie!

ok!

It looks like Wolfie went to bed or off to tend the rest of the pack. I'll do it in the morning if she has not.

The home-made black hole http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_523000/523161.stm

This link comes with all levels of knowledge - even down to my humble understanding. Black Hole FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/lib/bh_faq.html

ok, from space science news topic: Marcia (5 Feb 02): Black matter is the rubble left over from the Big Bang for which we cannot account. It is out there but we can't seem to track it. It occupies a far greater part of the universe than the known matter does. Missing mass hiding in galaxy clusters: Some of the Universe's missing mass has been revealed hiding in clusters of galaxies. Astronomers have discovered previously-unseen clouds of hot gas being pulled into the clusters. The gas has far greater mass than the observable stars in the galaxies and so may make up an appreciable fraction of the mass of the Universe. Astronomers have puzzled over the 'missing mass' of the Universe for decades. The problem is that what we can see in the Universe only accounts for about 10% of its the total mass. Ninety per cent of the Universe is invisible and can only be detected by its gravitational effects. A team of astronomers used the highly sensitive Nasa Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer satellite to detect radiation coming from the vast spaces between galaxies. They believe the UV radiation is coming from hot gas that is being sucked into the core of the galaxy cluster from outside. It is something not seen before. According to Dr Richard Lieu, of University of Alabama: "The UV radiation represents a genuine component of intracluster space." One object, the Abel 1795 cluster, seems to have enough hot gas to cause the entire cluster to collapse in on itself, pulled by gravity. Dr Lieu speculates that as the cluster of galaxies is intact, then the gas cannot have been in the cluster for very long. It must therefore have been sucked in from the space in-between the clusters of galaxies. The new gas clouds are not massive enough to be all of the much sought after missing mass. But it does provide a few clues. If a new component of galaxy clusters has been identified, and that component is just warm gas, then what else might be lurking out there between the clusters? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_318000/318132.stm

Marcia (5 Feb 02): Dark Matter in the Universe From Scientific American Imagine, for a moment, that one night you awaken abruptly from a dream. Coming to consciousness, blinking your eyes against the blackness, you find that, inexplicably, you are standing alone in a vast, pitch-black cavern. Befuddled by this predicament, you wonder: Where am I? What is this space? What are its dimensions? Groping in the darkness, you stumble upon a book of damp matches. You strike one; it quickly flares, then fizzles out. Again, you try; again, a flash and fizzle. But in that moment, you realize that you can glimpse a bit of your surroundings. The next match strike lets you sense faint walls far away. Another flare reveals a strange shadow, suggesting the presence of a big object. Yet another suggests you are moving--or, instead, the room is moving relative to you. With each momentary flare, a bit more is learned. In some sense, this situation recalls our puzzling predicament on Earth. Today, as we have done for centuries, we gaze into the night sky from our planetary platform and wonder where we are in this cavernous cosmos. Flecks of light provide some clues about great objects in space. And what we do discern about their motions and apparent shadows tells us that there is much more that we cannot yet see. From every photon we collect from the universe's farthest reaches, we struggle to extract information. Astronomy is the study of light that reaches Earth from the heavens. Our task is not only to collect as much light as possible--from ground- and space-based telescopes--but also to use what we can see in the heavens to understand better what we cannot see and yet know must be there. http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398rubin.html

Eugenia (5 Feb 02): Wolf, in a nut shell, we don't know what dark matter is, but we know it is there... it is spread out mass in the galaxies. Black holes are super crushed mass (theoretically there is no minimum mass for a black hole, if one is able to crush mass into a small enough space one creates a black hole, but most of the observable black holes have considerable mass) - I love black holes, specially because they are not completely black (light does not scape their gravitational field, but they generate very, very, very faint radiation). I find philosophicaly reassuring that Black Holes interact in a give - take relationship with the rest of the Universe (and give much to our knowledge of it). Marcia (5 Feb 02): Thanks Eugenia! I'd love to have some input on the other end of a black hole. Wolfie (5 Feb 02): yeah, the other end, makes me wonder about parallel universes or the direct ticket to heaven or something..... i haven't read much on black holes or dark matter except briefly. so, folks, don't feel dumb asking questions, i've already paved the way for you lurkers out there! ok, so black holes are squashed bits of dark matter with their own light. dark matter is garbage from the big bang but we know it's there because (of clouds found in other galaxies)? just like we know black holes exist because? i believe they exist but what are the facts showing that they do? thanks eugenia!

Eugenia (5 Feb 02): Wolf, Believe it or not, some scientists believe that your description is exactly what happens. Matter and light that is dragged into a black hole pass through to another (unknown) side of the Universe, perhaps a different Universe. Light is always dragged in a black hole. Radiation is not light; radiation is radiation (it arises from thermodynamics, from heat generated next to the event horizon of a black hole) We know that black holes exist because we have seen, photographed, measured, and predicted their effects (we keep doing it). This is done mathematically and otherwise (through observation). One of the most magic moments in human history was when Einstein explained that E=mc� (special relativity). Think about it this way; simple equation: two variables (energy and mass), one constant (speed of light), exchange dollars for pesos: the exchange rate is square speed of light, you can always change one for the other. From there Einstein explained the warping of space and time (General relativity), in other words: the agent of gravity is the fabric of space itself... gravity bathes in the fabric of space, when the moon gravitates around the earth all space bends according to that gravitation (I'll skip time, right now). There are numerous photographs of the warping of space taken by deep field exposures. We can see it. In a black hole the mass is so big that its gravitational field tears the fabric of space. It is a hole, that's not an euphemism. A hole of the fabric of space. This whole thing has been tested by every single method you can think of, short of falling into it (we can't see it nor photograph it because there is no light, but we see all the effects, and we predict them) One problem area was found (it's inconsistent with what we know about atoms), that's what string theory, now the Theory of Everything tries to answer. I must make a disclaimer: I'm not a theoretical physicist (duh!), but among other things, I studied philosophy (for a very specific reason), hence my interest in the matter. Ok... what's the connection? you ask (everybody does): both (in fact several scientific fields) search the same answers: how did we end up here?; why are we like we are?; how come we act the way we do?; where are we going to? Ultimately theoretical physics and philosophy search for God (believe me, we will never find. Our only real shot is in quantum mechanics, and my prediction is that there, we will find light). I constantly use science to ground philosophic arguments (and myself, else I get sooooo abstract I can't communicate - quite honestly, I understand, but I don't like, some of my more famous colleagues that question if the Sun will rise tomorrow). Funny thing is, when I hear lectures of this stuff the theoretical physicists use as much philosophical language (cynics, logic, sophistry, and the like), as mathem tics. I believe philosophy loses its usefulness when it loses its ground, therefore I try to follow these other crazy fields of study to keep me connected to something real (physics and genetics, are my favorites). So, before you jump in black holes, let me give you a little Cosmic History to think about. It's on display at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in NYC (that's the official name of the planetarium annex to the Museum of Natural History), which whomever has a chance, should not miss: First there was ?. "Big Bang! Generates extreme high density and temperature. Space expanded, the Universe cooled, and the simplest element was formed [H]. Gravity drew matter together to form the first stars and the first galaxies collected into groups of clusters and superclusters. Some stars died in supernova explosions whose chemical remnants seeded new generations of stars and enable the formation of planets. On at least one such planet life evolved into consciousness. And wondered: Where did I come from?" The table of elements is true here or at any point in the Universe. All we know of the Universe indicates that it's made of the same basic elements that we all saw in high school. The conclusion of the presentation in the planetarium of the Rose Center is this:. "You are star stuff." Indeed, we are.

Marcia (6 Feb 02): Beautiful stuff, Eugenia. We are star stuff, indeed, and to it we will eventually return. American Museum. *sigh* I absolutley lived in the Hayden Planetarium and the dinosaur hall - after looking at the Hall of Gems. Mummies, tombs, temples and all the rest. I still want a huge illuminated globe in the floor of a large panelled library and an Orrery in the ceiling. Of course, I don't have the edifice containing this fabulous library, but it has lived in my mind for many years. Eugenia, I loved your entire post. Thanks. We are all learners here. I'm just as happy you are NOT a physicist. If you were, I would have difficulty understanding your concepts. Ask John. The dear man does try patiently to explain his theories then posts a cascade if Greek symbols with a = sign between them. I am struggling along with the most humble of lurkers. Wolfie (6 Feb 02): thanks, eugenia, for your patient teaching *hugs* i didn't know we have photos of black holes! that's interesting about philosophy and the sciences! i think we have to have one in order to have the other. but one must be able to carry a philosophical question and embrace the what-ifs in order to come away with something of value. too often, scientists close their minds to what-ifs unless it can be found in a lab. i understand einstein's theory but i never used other things to replace the variables with. and then this "hole" thing (ooo, a pun!) sparks another philosophical idea within me--that we are not all there is *grin* that if there is a tear in the hole, there is something on the other side (i've always thought this but it does remind me of thinking about it)

Marcia (6 Feb 02): (I've posted somewhere on geo 24 a stunning diagram of a black hole... but it has evaded my hunting for it.) NASA's website is full of goodies about black holes. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010508.html More excellent diagrams are all over the net. I'll keep looking for the spindle of ejecta from the black hole I wanted to find. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/objects/binaries/frame_dragging.html ...and so much more on that site. Wolfie (6 Feb 02): ok, i don't get it...perhaps it's because i spent the last two hours hooking up my new cpu....when i click on the link to blackholes on the nasa image of the day website above, they discuss what would happen if you fall into one--you are torn apart. but the one thing that intrigues me is that the author says that no one can see a black hole directly, one has to assume they exist because of indirect proof. but it doesn't address what the proof is or what it looks like. (unless i missed it) marcia, sweetie, maybe we oughta open a topic just for black holes! *grin*

Eugenia (7 Feb 02): Marcia, I second Wolf, motion! Wolf, we can't and we never will be able to see a black hole, because our eyes are design to see light, and light only; but can't a blind person function? This may be not the best parallel but it is close enough... a blind person "sees" a lot of things using it's other sensatory organs because he or she knows that the fact that he or she can't see does not make a room empty. In Cosmology and Physics a lot of things are just like that. We see only with our mind's eyes, we abstract. Sometimes that can be extremely difficult (for example with multiple space dimensions). We know it's there because we feel the effects, or have to abstract stuff from other effects that they leave behind. Black holes are a consequence of the Theory of General Relativity. A little after Einstein finish it, during WWI, Schwarzschild, a German guy from the Russian front studied it (he was in the Russian front doing calculations of artillery trajectories). This is 1916 and this German guy said that if the mass of a star is concentrated in small enough a spherical region so that its mass divided by its radius exceeds a certain value (which is irrelevant for me to give you) the resulting wraping of space is so radical that not even light can escape it. At that time this was pure mathematics, totally abstract. If you still cannot see it, I'll give you another example: imagine a very pliable film membrane and give it some area to exist, say twice as big as a bowling ball. The membrane it is so pliable, so sensitive, that anything that touches it, no matter how gently, causes it to wrap, to bend (if this material existed condom should be made of them). Make the membrane flat and nothing touches it. Now a butterfly touches it and you see it bending down a little and some ripples... now place a bowling ball in it. The weight of the bowling ball will cause the membrane to wrap but the "angle", the curvature in which it does so is somewhat gentle because the bowling ball has a large area. Now take the bowling bowl out and get a pin head with the weight of a bowling ball and place it on the membrane: the resulting image in your mind should be of this membrane to drastically wrap so anything else you place in it will roll down... Can you see it? That is the mathematical principle akin to the black hole one (obviously, th re is a dimension problem in my example, but it is easier to visualize things when we take away dimensions).

Wolfie (7 Feb 02): no, no, i get the idea of black holes. just want to understand why we "know" they're there! eugenia, you really are very patient with me. thank you, and the membrane example is great. i understand that black holes have their own horizons and the light inside can't escape out of it which is why they're "black" holes! that it's like space is a cloth and at one part of the cloth is a valley with a pinhole in the bottom from which light emits but the stuff causing the black hole is heavier than everything else and even light can't escape through it. but the bottom of the valley is poking into something else and we don't know what that is. because the weight of the gravity of the mass causing the black hole would crush an unprotected object, we cannot see what "plane" the bottom is poking through. make any sense at all? sometimes we just have to repeat what we're told in our own words, you know? *laugh* and *HUGS* i can't be the only person in the universe who is clueless!!

John (8 Feb 02): Hello Ladies This is too high level discussion and perfect description Eugenia. I studied electronics but I love Physics, (especially nuclear physics), Chemistry, Mathematics and Astronomy. The example with the membrane is successful. But, let me to dispute for Big Bang theory, even if I saw the same story in the Planetarium of Athens! Did you know how is created the theory of Big Bang Eugenia? I heard a complete scientific lecture before two years in Volos. Lecturer was a good friend with name Nik Pratzos (PhD in astrophysics) who work in the National Research Center of France in Paris. He made step-by-step scientific analysis and described the logic that explains Big-Bang theory. I became disappointed finally. This beautiful and exciting theory is based on a big number of scientific admissions. The reason is that we cannot produce in laboratory, similar circumstances of too high temperatures and pressures in order to study what happen under them. Theory of Big Bang accepts that the results are the same as in lower temperatures and pressures each time needed. So, after many �if this is correct� we have the Big Bang theory. I am sorry but I cannot accept it. I prefer to say that this is a very good exciting story. Possibility to be correct all admissions are too low, I think. How many scientists know for those admissions? How high is the danger if someone accepts all of this theory as information and proceeds to philosophical cogitations? If I wrote something wrong please correct it or if you heard something different tell us about it. John

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the more intelligent astronomy community, I withheld my opinion of the Big Bang theory. Now that John has stated it so well (and he KNOWS this stuff) I am feeling brave enough to say I have never found much in this theory which made sense to me. It is very nice to have such good company!

refresh my memory on the big bang theory?

Big Bang theory with a few words About 15 billion years ago, the Universe began in a gigantic explosion - the Hot Big Bang! The Big Bang model can describe its subsequent evolution from one hundredth of a second up to the present day. This includes the expansion of the Universe, the origin of light elements and the relic radiation from the initial fireball, as well as a framework for understanding the formation of galaxies and other large-scale structures. Many questions can follow if the theory is near the truth. I will express one of them just for a start: Was the big bang a black hole? John

It's 1:16 AM my time, and I had to print (printing is the highest compliment I pay to anything on a screen) the debate on this board to reach a decision on how to approach the Big Bang topic (which, I hope to be able to demonstrate - but it seems to me most here agree - is related to the black hole problem). I decided to do it from a philosophical point of view, with which I'm more comfortable. By the way, why is John's message under Wolf's header? At this point in human knowledge, the Big Bang Theory is an axiom - by definition, a proposition not the truth. Yet, I have to defend it for what it is, and I believe it will eventually be proven. As I said, I use theoretical physics to ground philosophical arguments, I tend to side with physicists that ground their science in some philosophical views. The key word here is to ground. Let me assert two things: (1) I'm a person of convictions, not certainties. (2) there are very few people from whom I take the argument of the authority and not the authority of the argument. I'll try to summarize some of these convictions for what is relevant to the discussion. To do so, keep in mind, I'm skipping several steps, because each one of the following questions and answers can be object of debate in itself. If I don't establish some parameters for the debate we will get nowhere. Again, these are my views and to explain them fully and ground them I would end up writing a theses on the subject. What is truth? I don't know. But I believe that it is very likely to arise from either of two things: full dialectic debate, or scientific proof. What is reality? I don't know. But I believe that when something is observed as a fact and taken as real, that something is more likely than not to be real. What is knowledge? I don't know. But I believe that is something close to digesting the observed reality and understanding it. Whether the Universe can be reduced to numbers as Pythagoras sustained, or we will never understand it because divine is anyone's guess, but I believe - with a conviction that boarders certainty - that our destiny as humans is to try. I also believe that humankind, as a species, has accumulated a little knowledge since we got out of the caves. Let me pause here and digress a little bit in on how we did it: Let me start with Copernicus: The Earth around the Sun. Copernicus did not understand why the Earth revolved around the Sun. He simply observed it as a reality. Newton: Gravity. Newton did not understand how gravity operates, he simply observed it as a reality, I quote, "That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter at a distance thro' a vacuum without mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed, from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no Man who has philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it" (Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World, trans. Motte and Cajori, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1962, Vol. I, p. 634 ). Einstein: General Relativity. The agent of gravity is the fabric of the Cosmos - there are NO deviations from the predictions of General Relativity that have been observed with the present echnology (I'm in cosmology here); but we still don't understand how it operates (I'm in quantum mechanics here) we simply observe it as a reality . Do you guys see a pattern in this? It's now 2:33 AM my time and I'm going to sleep. I'll finish the argument tomorrow (it is in my head; it ain't going nowhere).

Ok Let�s go in higher-level philosophy. I will agree that reality is what we observe or what is explained completely (in all the ways). Truth is also what is real. But for that it isn�t perceivable by our senses, logic has the first word. Logic needs information of real facts to be useful. Logic can show us where�s included the truth but not the absolute truth. (Any problem does not have only one solution but a group of solutions). We need to work and think with groups of solutions. Logic gives wrong conclusion if we use wrong information. If we use hypothetical facts as information the result of logic is a theory. Let me answer to your initial positions Eugenia. (1). We are humans. We believe easily on what we hope. This is by nature. (2). Basis of logic. a. If we are based on the argument of the authority we just follow the authority or we take the authority as truth. Is this correct? b. If we are based on the authority of the argument that means that we have proves (at least some) for the argument of the authority. This is my position. I am not distrustful but I need to follow the logic in order to understand. I cannot express any opinion if I don�t understand. I believe that philosophy and mathematics are two parallel ways to approach common target. The truth. I also believe that mathematics is beneficiary method because they can express real facts that we cannot understand with our logic by nature. For example: Can you imagine a cube of four dimensions and then solve simple problems with it? Certainly not. But with mathematics is simple. I will follow your way Eugenia in any case. It is very interesting that you can think deeply. This is infrequent today and you are special and talented. Please do not induce from my positions and continue.

Sorry, I hit submit instead of paste (I'm known for doing that!). John, it is not fair - according to most accepted rules of dialectics, that you debate my argument before I finish it !!! (I'm smiling, it is suppose to be funny) I'll try to pick up where I left. And I'll comment on your comments tomorrow, if I may. When we deal with the edge of knowledge - as when we deal with the edge of ourselves, individually and as a species - rarely, if ever, we observe something and understand why. Therefore we are forced to exercise some options: do we doubt our observations, because they seem absurd based on the trusted knowledge; or do we trust our observation and doubt our knowledge? I understand quantum mechanics a little bit more than most people that share a subway car with me, most of my neighbors, and most of NYC population, and if you wish, we can dig into it - but let me make this very clear, as far as I know, NOBODY in the world has the answers for our observations in this field, which is extremely complex. We just observe it as a reality, we don't understand it. THE problem with the big bang theory, as with our understanding of black holes, is even bigger than the question mark: what the heck expanded, or what the heck is this crushed mass: the problem is that by whatever assumption we make, at a microscopic, subatomic level, after almost 100 years of observations what we believe is the reality of the atom, and we have tested this from several different approaches, is not consistent with what we observe as the reality of the Cosmos: one of them MUST be wrong (if we are to assume that the Cosmos or ourselves really exist. I assure you: in my own system of values, which seems in this point to be shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity: to doubt either it is not only pointless - it becomes pathetic.) In essence: By our observation of the Cosmos: Newton and Einstein are right. By our observation of atoms, Planck is right. But they cannot and do not work together. They are, I repeat, inconsistent according to the knowledge that we have AND with what we have observed. Again we have to exercise options: And here is where things get really interesting, because ultimately this is a subjective, individual, choice. One side is viewed as cynic, the other viewed as sophismatic - and vice versa. Unless we search for a theory that explains how they can be consistent, we are necessarily disputing the so defined observed reality. The physicists that dispute the Big Bang Theory or the existence of Black holes are NO more absurd than the physicists whom accept it: it all goes to a matter of point of view. It seems to me that the tendency is to attempt to conciliate our observations, through the so-called String Theory (which seems to change its name every time they add a new dimension to it, last I checked (12 dimensions) they were calling it Theory of Everything (Princeton), I don't believe the name caught on, though). When I state that this is a tendency, I try to do it from a somewhat objective point of view. How can anyone have an objective point of view after what I said? Well, one of the tests is the good old bottom line. Money. There is a reason why most of research money in theoretical physics (including my own, as a US and EU taxpayer) goes to this field. There is a reason why Princeton and Oxford, to stay within the traditional ones, spend more money in this damn absurd theory than in anything else within theoretical physics. When modern humans put money (and we are not talking little money here) where their mouths is they tend to believe that it will get them somewhere. Please, give this assertion some thought before you care to dispute it. Let me retake the point of view question and rephrase it in one of several other possible terms: Is the Universe chaotic and everything mere coincidence? Is the Universe balanced and things are the way they are based on some laws? Based in what we observe, either way is an axiom. We can never escape the axioms when we deal with the edge of knowledge. This is disturbing to Western cultures because it is taught to focus on certainties not on interactions . We are very close to establish with reasonable scientific accuracy (wait for HGP and Celera, next year) what has been suspected for a long time, but Greek philosophy (one of the pillars of Western cultures), likes to deny: we are very similar to other animals - much more than we Westerns care to admit. This, from my point of view, just proves what the evolution of knowledge (if you believe in it) has indicated for a long time: the distinctive trace between humans and other animals is not reason, is not emotion, is not even abstract thinking: it probably lies in enough abstract thinking to allow creativity . The mark of the geniuses from Phytagoras, to Einstein or Plank is that they defied the conventional, the reasonable, the acceptable and they dared be creative - absurdly so when one considers the degree of understanding humanity had at the time of their lives in search of answers (does Newton's quote come to mind?). One of the most enlightening studies I ever conducted was a comparative analyses of Greek and Chinese mainstream philosophic currents. They do share some values in common - in spite of the radically different approach, beliefs, historical, and cultural differences that mark each one of them. One of this values, and it is one I defend, is very, very ancient - and when we look closely tons of persons that added to what we are, as humans, defended it. I can quote almost anyone on this, from Shakespeare to Mencius. I choose to quote a Myth: Apollo: Know thyself . Any other cogitation, I may argue, is subjective, which implies it is dangerous from one or other point of view... Can't resist this one comment... please... please... (I rely on your kindness if I'm jumping ahead of myself). I do have enough abstract thinking to see hypercubes, to understand them, and to think in their terms - I even see in my mind's eye more than four space dimensions. But mathematics, for me, still is the other side of music ; physics the other side of visual arts; language the other side of poetry, so on and so forth: Again, aren't we discussing values? Philosophy , for me, is the other side of theoretical physics... it is the other side of the edge of knowledge . It never makes complete sense; should it?

(Wolfie posted the comments we made on Geo 24 before this topic was created. That is why all of our early comments on this subject are posted under her name.)

(John),I believe that philosophy and mathematics are two parallel ways to approach common target. The truth. (Eugenia), Philosophy, for me, is the other side of theoretical physics... it is the other side of the edge of knowledge, mathematics, for me, still is the other side of music Keith Jarrett, the Koln Concert and Scriabin's "Le Poeme de l'extase." :-) Amen!

ok, i don't even think i can opine anymore because of the level of philosophy we're getting to. one thing i can add to this discussion is (i believe in the creation theory and in evolution, that will be saved for another topic) but the creation story was written simply for the time and for any time because we're not all physicists. the world was created but it was not revealed how. i think there is a reason for this. it doesn't matter if the world was created by a big bang or because God said it should be so, what matters is that it is. there is only so much we can handle but the answers are there. i read somewhere that the average human being uses only 10% of their brain. can you imagine what type of beings we would be if we could only reach our potential? perhaps einstein and fellows were able to reach 15% of their brain's potential. or they just voiced what they saw with their average 10% brains! mathematics is truth and i'm bad at math, so does that make me a liar? but truth is always the same, every generation, every millenium. at times i feel like the mayans and the incas and the egyptians and others were far more advanced in their thinking than modern day man. because we need proof of everything-we can no longer accept anything. so the basic theory behind black holes is that they are the result of a birth in the cosmos (big bang or little bang)....they pull the dark matter into themselves and we can't see them, right? but we don't know if there are big or little bangs, just births and deaths of stars, right? i appreciate the intelligence being shown in these conversations...thank you for entertaining my silly questions and interjections!

I need to print out this entire topic to see if I can possibly fllow the discourse. I am not used to thinking in the abstract. It is full of pitfalls and the more nebulous it gets the more difficult it is for me to grasp. If being a non-mathmatics thinker makes you a bad person, you have me for company. Theories abound as to origin of black holes. Meanwhile, I will let the theoreticians of Geo have at it. I feel much more comfortable with the tangible world. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=origin+of+black+holes

I think that we go too far Eugenia. Here is not applicable place for too complex logical consequence. Readers expect information; clear and simple description of what is believed today for Black Holes, for Big Bang or for anything located at the edge of knowledge. So, I will answer to you by this way for last time. I respect your arguments Eugenia. I made my initial positions clear behind yours, according the most accepted rules of dialectics. (I suppose that it is not funny). If what we believe is the reality of the atom, is not consistent with what we observe as the reality of the Cosmos then: 1.we made wrong suppositions because we are really here. (In this case, WE ARE PATHETIC ONLY IF WE HAVE CLOSED EYES) 2.Or we are supposing with defective data (In this case, Doubt is not only compulsory but very useful. Our ego does not allow clear view to the truth some times). If we have several correct explanations for the same true fact, but we cannot find any connection between them, we must find missing link and prove it. Not by suppositions but with observations. Science without experiments does not exist. If we cannot make needed experiments, it is better to stay patient until our technology can support the appropriate tools. I don�t doubt the axioms or their helpfulness. My question is if we know all the axioms that we need in order to explain Big Bang or Black Holes. I am sure NOT. We must be very careful when we deal with the edge of knowledge. I am not trying to prove what I am or to prove myself. Our friends here must understand everything of what we say and join the discussion. We are like a family here and we must be stay like this. Do you think that you can help my research using your way of cogitation Eugenia? (You can see what is in topic 9). Thank you anyway.

Hi Moon Thank you for your accurate critical underlines. I think that we are going to open a new black hole here instead to describe what is believed today. Can you tell us your opinion?

You are absolutely correct Wolfie. I believe that there is a reason for anything we live and make. We cannot explain why. Unfortunately we use the most of the 10% of our brain to fill our self-conceit. Life is beautiful if we want to see and live in this side. We can find a beautiful flower even in a gloomy place.

PLEASE continue your discussion. Part of the foundation of science it making your thoughts known. Sometimes we need to see them in print before we can understand exactly what it is we are thinking. My gratitude does not match my ability to keep up with these thoughts. Good morning, John!

Big Bang theory is the modern story or Myth of Genesis that surpasses even our wildest speculations. Somehow, It is a scientific or near-scientific attempt in order to explain provenance of universe and our generation. It describes the creation of universe from the earliest moments of the universe, to the formation of galaxies and stars, then planets and finally life. Conclusion that the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the Big Bang theory. But, on what knowledge scientists are based? I will try to describe their detections. (Please correct me if you see something wrong) 1.The light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red, as it should be if space is expanding and galaxies are pulled away from one another. 2.An ocean of thermal radiation fills space, as it should if space used to be denser and hotter. 3.The universe contains large amounts of deuterium and helium, as it should if temperatures were once much higher. 4.Galaxies billions of years ago look distinctly younger, as they should if they are closer to the time when no galaxies existed. 5.The curvature of space-time seems to be related to the material content of the universe, as it should be if the universe is expanding according to the predictions of Einstein's gravity theory, the General Theory of Relativity. I think that this is the building material of Big bang theory. But we must recognize that whoever built the universe or anyhow it was created, it has extraordinary uniformity. John

Hi Moon Thank you for your accurate critical underlines. I think that we are going to open a new black hole here instead to describe what is believed today. Can you tell us your opinion? But we must recognize that whoever built the universe or anyhow it was created, it has extraordinary uniformity. Hello John. I always enjoy a good philosophical argument, and in Europe we do it all the time. My husband, who is Italian is very good at it, but, you may not like my opinion because I believe in the traditional Catholic beliefs of creation. (I am not 40 yet, and am probably in a minority here because of my very strong spiritual beliefs). The Big Bang Theory has always fascinated me because it is a theory.

Counld they not be the same thing, Moon? Just different ways of stating "Let there be light!" I think we look for simple explainations when we are in our youth, either evolutionary or current lifetime. As we mature we see more of the reasons behind our beliefs. Our thoughts and beliefs become more complex. And so it goes. I have no difficulty merging creation of the universe with Creation in the Bible, but then, I am merely an Episcopalian (Church of England) and as such I am already in trouble. John, you stated it perfectly and exactly as I have been taught and as I understand the information. I still have difficulties with this theory, as we discussed earlier. Will it ever be truly understood or stated to the ultimate satisfaction of everyone? I doubt it. Moon, I am beginning to break my vow to save "The Story of Yew" and am reading it now. I pop to the computer on occasion to keep up with the posts, but I am enjoying it very much and will discusss it in Geo 37 where we first knew of it. Thank you for telling me about it! I think I will also be sending this book to others.

Could they not be the same thing, Moon? Just different ways of stating "Let there be light!" Science always tries to be grounded in fact. With religion and Creation in the Bible, we have to be grounded in faith. The finite (science), vs the infinite (God, faith, religion). I don't think they are compatible. Moon, I am beginning to break my vow to save "The Story of Yew" and am reading it now. I am enjoying it very much and will discusss it in Geo 37 I look forward to it! Have a wondrous read. :-)

Moon, I believe wholly in the genesis creation and love a good philosophical discussion. I guess it was missed the comment I made (and Marcia referred to) that the Bible doesn't go into the details of "how". So who are we to say that God did it this one way and didn't use Science? Afterall, He is the one who created Nature and Science. How would people many years ago even fathom the idea of big bangs and stars running into each other? Even today, we cannot fathom this theory. It is too large for our simple minds to grasp. I don't understand the Big Bang theory. I need simple words to help me see it in my mind's eye. But, I don't need the theory to know the world/universe exists and I don't need to seek the answers as to why. But I find this to be very interesting topic of discussion. *HUGS* Please, let's continue this discussion and learn from each other.

My background is full of scientists, mostly chemists of one sort or another, plus the botanists and geologists. SOMETHING had to cause the creation of the Universe. Perhaps I am hanging onto my childhood reassurances in thinking that the cause could have been God. Faith and science do not need to be polar opposites. Even Einstein came to terms with faith and physics late in his life. I find it reassuring to think I am Not the most important force in all creation. I recently had an interesting conversation with a newly "reborn" Christian who happens to be a working archaeologist. He stated flatly that there was nothing in his science background that did not agree with the tenets (facts) of his faith. He is devout and studious about the Bible as much as he is about tracing mankind's history on earth. I agree with him. It was enlighening and a very encouraging conversation. Now, if only he had the time to talk to us here... Now, I will need to find another good book to read on that flight of 5 hours across the Pacific to visit my son and new daughter-in-law.

when are you coming???

As soon as I am summoned. I suspect it will be more difficult to arrange for her mother than for me. They wish to show off their new home, and for us to meet. I hope they do not wait until they have everything "perfect" or I'll never get there!

(Wolf), So who are we to say that God did it this one way and didn't use Science? Afterall, He is the one who created Nature and Science. Have you read Rupert Sheldrake's "A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation"? RS is a trained Scientist, Cambridge, Harvard and when his book came out, the science bible "Nature" magazine said it should be burned. A former atheist, now a very religious man. A great mind and a great read. I also recommend his "The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God." (Marcia), Faith and science do not need to be polar opposites. True. But many scientists do take that route.

(Marcia), Faith and science do not need to be polar opposites. (Moon)True. But many scientists do take that route. Moon, Most scientists do not take that route. I am all too aware of this bit of human frailty. (I love your Drool form of posting - I had forgotten how important it is for following discussions!)

Of course, it is best when I remember to place the italics

I see another book I must read - or two! Thanks, Moon, for telling us of Robert Sheldrake. Burn books? Horrors!

You would enjoy both books, Marcia. (Marcia), Moon, Most scientists do not take that route. I am all too aware of this bit of human frailty. I am happy to take your word for it, Marcia. I guess I have met too many scientists that consider themselves "fully paid up materialists," most of them in Italy and the UK. Here in the US it may be different.

In my experience, Moon, it takes a cataclysmic event to make some people realize they are not the Alpha and Omega of all life. We are a stubborn lot. I suspect the female population believes more readily than the male.

Hi Moon, I am a typical Christian Orthodox Greek. But, I never close my eyes and I like searching the truth. I believe God in my way. God never leaves me in difficult moments in my life. But this is not the issue. It doesn't exists any danger if I like or not your opinion, because: First, I respect all people and I accept them as they are and anything they believe. Second, I have no problem with very strong spiritual beliefs even when they are not corresponds to mine. I use logic before them but I respect them. Third, I believe that discussion is a multi-windowed view to the truth. So, I like to see cosmos through the windows of my discussant eyes. This is very useful because it works for all. So, I think that you can feel free with us. Do not feel minority here. We respect anyone who respects us. But, I think that we have not any reason to discuss religious issues. By way of precaution WE MUST NOT DISCUSS RELIGIOUS ISSUES HERE. The rule is only one word: RESPECT.

Big Bang theory it postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, at the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. All forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time, were formed at this instant and they were only a few millimetres across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. CARL SAGAN (the late astronomer, 1934-1996) was the first person to explain the history of the universe in one year-as a "Cosmic Calendar", in his television series, Cosmos. I have recorded about 11 videotapes, which contain series Cosmos in the past. I will present you his Cosmic Calendar with no comments. I believe that this is a good way to understand this theory. Imagine that the history of the universe is compressed into one year and Big Bang occurring in the first seconds of New Year's Day. Using this scale of time, each month would equal a little over a billion years and all our known history occurring in the final seconds before midnight on December 31. Cosmic Calendar (From The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan) Pre-December Dates January 1: Big Bang May 1: Origin of Milky Way Galaxy September 9: Origin of the solar system September 14: Formation of the Earth ~September 25: Origin of life on Earth October 2: Formation of the oldest rocks known on Earth October 9: Date of oldest fossils (bacteria and blue-green algae) ~November 1: Invention of sex (by micro organisms) November 12: Oldest fossil photosynthetic plants November 15: Eukaryotes (first cells with nuclei) flourish December Monday 1: Significant oxygen atmosphere begins to develop on Earth. Friday 5: Extensive volcanism and channel formation on Mars. Tuesday 16: First Worms. Wednesday 17: Precambrian ends. Paleozoic Era and Cambrian Period begin. Invertebrates flourish. Thursday 18: First oceanic plankton. Trilobites flourish. Friday 19: Ordovician Period. First fish, first vertebrates. Saturday 20: Silurian Period. First vascular plants. Plants begin colonization of land. Sunday 21: Devonian Period begins. First insects. Animals begin colonization of land. Monday 22: First amphibians. First winged insects Tuesday 23: Carboniferous Period. First trees. First reptiles. Wednesday24: Permian Period begins. First dinosaurs. Thursday 25: Paleozoic Era ends. Mesozoic Era Begins. Friday 26: Triassic Period. First mammals. Saturday 27: Jurassic Period. First birds. Sunday 28: Cretaceous Period. First flowers. Dinosaurs become extinct. Monday 29: Mesozoic Era ends. Cenozoic Era and Tertiary Period begin. First cetaceans. First primates. Tuesday 30: First evolution of frontal lobes in the brains of primates. First hominids. Giant mammals flourish. Wednesday 31: End of Pliocene Period. Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene) Period. First humans. December 31 01:30:00 p.m. Origin of Proconsul and Ramapithecus, probable ancestors of apes and men 10:30:00 p.m. First humans. 11:00:00 p.m. Widespread use of stone tools. 11:46:00 p.m. Domestication of fire by Peking man. 11:56:00 p.m. Beginning of most recent glacial period. 11:58:00 p.m. Seafarers settle Australia. 11:59:00 p.m. Extensive cave painting in Europe. 11:59:20 p.m. Invention of agriculture. 11:59:35 p.m. Neolithic civilization; first cities. 11:59:50 p.m. First dynasties in Sumer, Ebla and Egypt; development of astronomy. 11:59:51 p.m. Invention of the alphabet; Akkadian Empire. 11:59:52 p.m. Hammurabic legal codes in Babylon; Middle Kingdom in Egypt. 11:59:53 p.m. Bronze metallurgy; Mycenaean culture; Trojan War; Olmec culture; invention of the compass. 11:59:54 p.m. Iron metallurgy; First Assyrian Empire; Kingdom of Israel; founding of Carthage by Phoenicia. 11:59:55 p.m. Asokan India; Ch'in Dynasty China; Periclean Athens; birth of Buddha. 11:59:56 p.m. Euclidean geometry; Archimedean physics; Ptolemaic astronomy; Roman Empire; birth of Christ. 11:59:57 p.m. Zero and decimals invented in Indian arithmetic; Rome falls; Moslem conquests. 11:59:58 p.m. Mayan civilization; Sung Dynasty China; Byzantine empire; Mongol invasion; Crusades. 11:59:59 p.m. Renaissance in Europe; voyages of discovery from Europe and from Ming Dynasty China; emergence of the experimental method in science. Now: The first second of New Year's Day Widespread development of science and technology; emergence of global culture; acquisition of the means of self-destruction of the human species; first steps in spacecraft planetary exploration and the search of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Moon: i've not read those books but they sound interesting. i will have to look them up. John: that sounds amazing but hard to take in at once. i still am having trouble "getting" it.

Wolfie, that is what I am assuming we all are feeling. None of us REALLY understand it. Neither do those who expound in high places all about it. You are in lofty company!

THE DESTINY OF A STAR When we talk about stars we mean sky bodies like our Sun, which is a star too. Stars are bright bodies that emit light and energy to the surrounding space. A star originates, live and decease. There are exists two forces that forms the shape and volume in each sky body. Gravity is the inwards force that tends to reduce this body and an equal but outwards force that resist to reduction. It is the inner pressure. Shape and volume of the sky bodies depends on the point of this equation. In the case of stars, big pressure is produced by the nuclear reactions inside its body. The fusion of hydrogen in the core of a star produces energy and Helium atoms. When the hydrogen in the core is almost burned up, the inner core starts to collapse (Because pressure is reduced) inward and its temperature rises. Hydrogen atoms outside the core starts to burn because of the increased temperature and the star increases in size - this is called the RED GIANT phase. In the meantime, the core of the red giant will contract until the temperature will be high enough to start the fusion of helium into carbon. Helium will burn quickly. As helium is converted into carbon, the core will grow smaller and denser. As the nuclear fuel is exhausted, the outward forces of radiation diminish, allowing the gravitation to compress the star inward. The contraction of the core causes its temperature to rise and allows remaining nuclear material to be used as fuel. The star is saved from further collapse, but only for a while. Eventually, all possible nuclear fuel is used up and the core collapses. If the star is sufficiently massive or compressible, it may collapse to a BLACK HOLE. If it is less massive or made of stiffer material, its fate is different: it may become a WHITE DWARF or a NEUTRON STAR.

WHAT IS A BLACK HOLE FINALLY? A black hole is a region of space where the gravitational pull is so strong that no matter can leave the black hole. Near a black hole, gravity is so strong that light that falls into the black hole cannot escape. Thus, WE CANNOT SEE A BLACK HOLE. Its existence has to be deduced from other observations. John

ok, so how does gravity get stuck in this one place to cause a black hole?

This is a super little website aboutr formation of Black Holes http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/form.htm This is another good one http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleFormation.html

Black Holes are not the only incredible things out there. Consider the white dwarf star. A teaspoonful of white dwarf material would weigh five-and-a-half tons or more in the Earth's gravity!

Does someone know about WHITE HOLES THEORY? They are the other ends of BLACK HOLES. They are connected between them with something like nave string.

Only during our conversation of yesterday did I become aware of White Holes, though I do remember Carl Sagan mentioning them in his series, COSMOS I did what I usually do, I hunted on the internet for more information. The Question If white holes eject matter so quickly, why do they exist ? Wouldn't they destroy themselves? Maybe they are at the other end of a black hole ? The Answer White holes are VERY hypothetical. They are, in fact, predicted as a possible "other end" of a black hole that has punctured a "worm hole" through space, but black holes are most likely just a point in space without an other side. The matter/energy coming out of white holes is supposedly the matter falling into a black hole. I have only seen them discussed in theoretical physics talks. At one point scientists speculated that quasars may be white holes, but now we are fairly certain that quasars are powered by supermassive black holes, in which case the light we see comes from matter as it falls into the black hole. After it falls in, we assume the matter just becomes part of the black hole and does not come out anywhere (see the Basic or Advanced discussions of active galactic nuclei in Imagine the Universe! for more on this.) http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970301.html

In the absence of John's understanding of physics and his expert presentation of what White Holes consist, I add more elementary information as an introduction to what he will hypothesize. What these snippets actually tell me is that not only do we NOT understand expactly what Black Holes are, we have even less information on White Holes. http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/long15.shtml A white hole is the opposite of a black hole. It's like a cosmic gusher, with matter pouring out of it. If matter goes through a black hole tunnel, it comes out of a white hole at the other end. Some calculations show that a white hole that is not rotating could get turned inside out by gravity, having a black hole form around it. But if the white hole is rotating, it can't suffer this fate, and will not be hidden from the rest of the universe.

A Mystery in the Galactic Center NASA Science News for February 21, 2002 Astronomers have learned that the center of our Milky Way galaxy harbors a long-sought supermassive black hole. But the finding has raised even more questions than before. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/21feb_mwbh.htm?list89800

wow!!! how do they know it's there?

click on the link. They tell the story better than I can , but it reads, in part They glow, unsteadily flickering, at all wavelengths from radio to gamma rays, and they spew powerful jets of charged particles into space. Rees reasoned that black holes gobbling matter were the sources of such turmoil.

Hello everyone! I'm really taking a plunge here, since I'm normally a total lurker at the Spring and only started reading this string...well, today actually. So I hope you won't be offended if I jump in here and try to answer a little bit of the "how do we actually find real black holes in real life question." I have to start with a few basics of stellar death--some of this is what John was getting into earlier. Some of this does involve quantum mechanics, but I'm going to try hard to keep it simple. If anyone needs more info. as to the "why" feel free to ask but I'm not sure I can give it. As John said, when stars begin to run out of fuel in their cores the thermal pressure (we know that hot things like to expand, right?) that keeps the core "inflated" so to speak begins to decrease. For most of the star's life gravity and thermal pressure are in equilibrium. That is, if gravity wins a little and the core contracts, it heats up and stops contracting. But as stars age, they eventually hit a point where the electrons in their core become "degenerate" (great term!), meaning that they don't want to be compressed anymore. Then the outward pressure is from quantum mechanics (rules which say that electrons don't like to be too close together), and the core stops changing in size and is held up by all the electrons. If the star is small, when it stops burning this structure will remain--slowly cooling, but supported by electron degeneracy pressure. At this stage, the star is called a White Dwarf. (who said they were cool? yep. they're made of carbon, and as the surface cools it crystallizes- eat your heart out, DeBeers!) If the star is a little larger, however (that is, if its core has a mass of greater than 1.4 times the mass of the sun), than even the electrons can't hold it up against gravity. A cataclysmic collapse occurs, followed by a rebound--springy, like a rubber bouncy ball. This high-energy explosion is called a supernova, and it leaves behind one of two things. If the core's mass is between 1.4 and about 3 solar masses, a neutron star remains. These guys have all sorts of cool properties also, but I'll tell you the one which is important to us here. When electron degeneracy pressure is overcome, the electrons are basically smushed right into the nucleii--they join with the protons to make neutrons. This is accompanied by a very fast contraction which is stoppped by a figurative brick wall called neutron degeneracy pressure. This is the same idea as electron degeneracy pressure. When neutrons get so close together that they don't want to be compressed any more, they begin to support the structure against gravity. A neutron star is just this--a ball of atomic nucleus. Its radius is about the length of Manhattan, and its density is such that a cube .5mm on a side weighs as much as the ship Queen Mary. But even neutrons aren't infinitely strong. If the core of the star is greater than about 3 solar masses, neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome by gravity. After this, there is nothing else that can stop the star from contracting to singularity. At this point, the former star has become a black hole. Within a certain radius, nothing can escape. Okay, so here's the fun part. We can use the information above to help find black holes by process of elimination! As matter falls into black holes, it tends to give off a lot of X-ray radiation. If we screen X-ray sources for certain criteria, we can determine which ones are probably black holes. Here's how: 1)find an object that emits heavily in the x-ray wavelengths 2)determine if it is part of a binary system. Meaning, is it orbiting another object? This seems arbitrary, but the reality is that many if not most things in the universe come in pairs. Our sun is more the exception than the rule. Even objects that are very far away can be seen to be orbiting something, because their spectra become Doppler shifted towards the red when they are moving away from us and toward the blue when they are moving toward us. It's cyclical, and we can detect it fairly regularly. 3)if the x-ray source is part of a binary system, convince yourself that the companion is "dark" (rather than just faint or emitting radiation in a wavelength that you haven't looked for) 4)determine the orbital period and the semi-major axis of rotation of the visible body. Using a combination of these two pieces of information, Kepler's third law and the "teeter-totter" equation (not sure real name--it equates mass and radius of two ends of a fulcrum/lever system like a seesaw), it is possible to determine the mass of both bodies in question. 5)fit the mass of the dark object into one of the following three categories: a)if the mass is less than 1.4 solar masses, it could be a white dwarf that has cooled into a "black" dwarf (though this is rather unlikely to occur at this point in the universe's youth, since it takes a long time for a small star to die and a really long time for a white dwarf to cool) b)if the mass is between 1.4 and 3 solar masses, it could be a neutron star c)if the mass is greater than 3 solar masses, it must be a black hole. This is the only thing that can be so massive and dense and yet not emit any light. Obviously, this procedure will not help us to identify every black hole out there. But in order to test our theories about what BH's are and how they behave, we only need to find a few, and this procedure has done that. The most famous one (perhaps the first found??) is paired with an x-ray source in Cygnus called Cygnus X-1. By the above methods astronomers found that the dark partner in the system has a mass of about 8 solar masses--too big to be anything but a black hole. I definitely don't have the education/brains to keep up with the philosophy debate, so I'm going to stop here! Hope this helps in the question of how to find things that we can't see! ~Lu

Fantastic to see you Lu! Welcome out of Lurkdom. Aloha and a cup of hot steaming whatever you like along with a lei of fragrant Hawaiian flowers for you. Thanks for your thoughtful post. Make yourself comfortable. We're delighted to have you join our happy ranks.

Welcome in the down world Lu! It is our contentment that you read Geo even as lurker. Is cosmology your favorite hobby or perhaps your occupation? Your post is businesslike and totally perfect. I did not know well big part from the knowledge that you are shared with us. We must thank you for this plunge here. Apropos of the Olympic games, I will say a phrase from ancient Greece. So, ancient Greeks they were saying that "Perhaps between the spectators of the Olympic Athletic Contests exist more capable athletes but the glory is for those they battle in stadium." You are welcome in the stadium Lu! Please remember it when you emerge again. John

thank you lu!! i'm so glad someone came out of lurking to post here! you've done a marvelous job at explaining it in simple terms (i even followed the quantum physics and the teeter-totter theory-am familiar with fulcrum/lever theory but don't know the name either). and i've heard of cygnus but all i knew was it was a star. i think what really helped me to understand it was that it is the result of a star dying (depending on the mass). i think i lost this somewhere in the other explanations. so depending on the mass of the dying star, the implosion (right?) is what the black hole is. ok! and another point, i didn't know any star was larger than our sun!

our sun is really a small one on The Main Sequence. I'll post that if someone does not beat me to it.

* Runaway Growth: Possible Origin for Supermassive Black Holes http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackholes_midsize_020221.html A growing understanding of the missing link in the chain of black hole evolution may soon help astronomers sort out how stars evolve and how galaxies, in general, are built.

hey again guys! The Spring has been crashing my browser (and sometimes computer) lately--very strange, etc.--so I'm hoping to sneak in before it notices me uhere... John--no, this is definitely NOT my occupation (I'm a student for three more months and then a sailor), but I've taken a few courses and had a great professor...and it's cool! Thanks for your welcome, though. Wolfie: It sounds like you've pretty much got it. Actually the implosion/rebound itself is a supernova, but the core collapse only takes about one second and then whatever is left over, depending on mass, may be a black hole. Marcia is right. The sun is a very modest star--not the smallest, but certainly not the largest, which is a good thing for us. Astronomers can measure the mass of stars on the main sequence (meaning when they are in the "prime of life" and are still burning hydrogen in their cores) by measuring their brightness. Stars which are burning hydrogen faster are, not surprisingly, brighter. Since the rate at which stars burn hydrogen is driven by their mass (and therefore gravity--the amount of force making them want to collapse), there is a fairly simple mass-luminosity relationship. Stars are categorized by their luminosity: O,B,A,F,G,K,M, where O stars are brightest/biggest and M stars are dimmest/smallest. The sun is a G star, right near the middle. The reason I said that this i good for us is that big, bright stars have surprisingly short lifetimes since they are burning their hydrogen so fast. The biggest O stars (masses between 30 and 50 solar masses) have lifetimes of only about a million years. Not enough time for us to have happened! Obviously, since the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Sun only seems to be about halfway through its core hydrogen, a G star is rather a better spot to set up camp. Eugenia: I know you're busy, but you mentioned either here or on droolfic that there is a hypercube site that one can play with somewhere. Do you have a link? I'd love to see it. ~Lu

Please, Eugenia let us know where the hypercube website is. Lu, you may just have to leave her a message in Odds and Ends. I'd do it, but I am still experiencing "glitch" problems from the massive hacking Spring endured a few weeks ago and I still cannot post there. The writing box simply fails to show up for me. Things should be settling down again at Spring. perhaps you need to water-proof your CPU against excessive Darcyism. =) Been there and done that.

Math challenged Geo readers, NASA has just come to our aid. NASA KIDS: Mystery in the Milky Way A special NASAKIDS delivery NASAKIDS by Liftoff to Space Exploration Marcia, is there really a black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy? Astronomers using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in space think they have the answer. But, there are always more questions! Come read more at - NASA KIDS http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2002/news-mystery.asp?list17243-136

LOL! Note how the explain in one paragraph in the upper right what it took me practically pages to say! I've never been known for succinctness. Thanks for that, Marcia! ~Lu

The guys at NASA must have been lurking and took pity on us. I'm delighted they are doing good works and making it available to the future of our space program. Personally, I liked yours better...

Dear /\~~~, I wish I could spend some time here because this is one of my favorite subjects, Hugs, Ami

Happy Geo! You have found your way into my heart yet another way. Welcome. I also wish you could spend some time here. I've never delved into your scientific psyche! It should be quite an adventure. Come back any time andmake yourself comfortable. Wherever I am, you are welcome like family and you get my warmest *HUGS* for just being here. /\~~~

Strange stars suggest new kind of matter Two rogue stars have failed to live up to scientific expectations, compelling puzzled astronomers to consider the likelihood that they possess a new and exotic form of matter. If confirmed, the discovery would warrant a new class of objects, quark stars, which fall somewhere in between neutron stars and black holes in density. more... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/

The full story for the New matter found in strange stars is at the following: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/04/10/new.matter/index.html

maybe that's heaven!

FLARES ILLUMINATE THE SECRET LIFE OF A QUIESCENT BLACK HOLE ----------------------------------------------------------- Astronomers probing the intimate details of apparently quiescent stellar black holes have discovered that in reality they are dynamic, lively places, subject to flares that briefly illuminate the whole of the gas disc around the black hole. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/21blackhole/

discovery had a show on Friday (The Science Channel) about black holes--i didn't see all of it but the part that i did see went right along with what you guys have been saying. i really finally understood what was going on (think the pics helped).

Absolutely the pictures and animations help. I watched that, too.

my son watched the whole thing! i thought that was cool. (of course, he is a tv addict *grin*)

Maybe you can pry him out of the house long enoug to watch for scheduled satellite observastions. It is highly addictive and easy enough to do with your location logged into http://www.heavens-above.com If you have forgotten your coordinates, John's EQ plot for your area has it closely enough for celestial events.

SCIENTISTS FIND BLACK HOLE PUMPS ENERGY AS IT SPINS --------------------------------------------------- MIT scientists have more evidence that black holes can spin, creating a whirlpool in the fabric of space that pumps energy out of the black hole and into the region. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/23blackhole/

ARE BLACK HOLES NOT REALLY HOLES? --------------------------------- Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of South Carolina have provided a hypothesis that "black holes" in space are not holes at all, but instead are more akin to bubbles. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/28blackbubble/

yeah, they're more like upside down bubbles (at least that's how i understood it from discovery)--like when you're blowing a bubble from the point of view of your mouth looking toward the bubble.

That was an excellent analogy. For once I could actually imagine it!

You�re blowing the bubble.......but the bubble�s volume insists not increasing. You may wonder at the beginning. But later perhaps you feel affright!!! "Hugs" John

What happens when the bubble breaks?

You buy more gum? (sorry - couldnt resist. -back to your intellectually superior conversation...) ;-)

Just what we need - a universe held together with bubble gum. *;)

;-P

The bubble cannot break logically. Its volume is constant even if you�re blowing forever. You are proved very fast that you can think out of the box ES-BE. Can you continue to explain about this strange bubble gum? Surely you can! John

LOL - i'm pretty much just good at making wisecracks John, not deep thoughts. :-) re: the box, dont think i've ever actually been in it. rather, have spent the whole of my life outside of it, wondering why everone else thinks alike but me. occationally someone thinks i'm brillant (besides my cat) but its not a regular occurance. ;-)

sometimes i get stuck in the box but i've cut peepholes so i can see out of it.

Wolfie is paid to think in the box. As for me, I am still wondering where the box is located.

EsBee is not ALLOWED to have a box. She keeps trying to round the corners!

For a lovely page of links about Black Holes and some pretty nice animations http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/blackhole.html

no, they want me to think out of the box without actually leaving it to see what's there (reason for peepholes)!!