Man-made Black Hole that could destroy the world

[Jeremy]

You are an ignorant bitch, you know that? I didn't lie. I stated that you can go look in a vast variety of modern astronomy books, and there you can quote lines stating that planets do exist between solar systems.

You have way too much fuckin' time on your hands. Don't you have something better to do with your time than spend 20 minutes looking up 20 sources for the same word just to prove someone on the internet that they're wrong. When in fact, there was nothing to be proven in the first place. Go fuckin' read a book, and quit mulling over the internet you stupid nerd. I suspect you are quite pale.

I gave you my source, go look at it, and quit being an ignorant bitch.

So what's your explanation for all those websites, including NASA and the IAU, the two most important space related organisations, all defining a planet as "orbiting a star?" Are they all wrong, and you're right?

[Switch Kicker]

You are an ignorant bitch, you know that? I didn't lie. I stated that you can go look in a vast variety of modern astronomy books, and there you can quote lines stating that planets do exist between solar systems.

You have way too much fuckin' time on your hands. Don't you have something better to do with your time than spend 20 minutes looking up 20 sources for the same word just to prove someone on the internet that they're wrong. When in fact, there was nothing to be proven in the first place. Go fuckin' read a book, and quit mulling over the internet you stupid nerd. I suspect you are quite pale.

I gave you my source, go look at it, and quit being an ignorant bitch.

So what's your explanation for all those websites, including NASA and the IAU, the two most important space related organisations, all defining a planet as "orbiting a star?" Are they all wrong, and you're right?

I'm not gonna fuckin' baby feed this shit to you. Go fuckin' figure it out if it's pissing you off so much.

And texta, I don't read college text books. The astronomy of star trek? Please... The only reason I list the last three minutes is because it happenes to be my favorite one. It's the only one I decided to buy because I was sick of checking it out from school.

Not everything comes out of a text book, or a dictionary you two. You're both more shallow than my kitchen sink.

[Switch Kicker]

You are an ignorant bitch, you know that? I didn't lie. I stated that you can go look in a vast variety of modern astronomy books, and there you can quote lines stating that planets do exist between solar systems.

You have way too much fuckin' time on your hands. Don't you have something better to do with your time than spend 20 minutes looking up 20 sources for the same word just to prove someone on the internet that they're wrong. When in fact, there was nothing to be proven in the first place. Go fuckin' read a book, and quit mulling over the internet you stupid nerd. I suspect you are quite pale.

I gave you my source, go look at it, and quit being an ignorant bitch.

So what's your explanation for all those websites, including NASA and the IAU, the two most important space related organisations, all defining a planet as "orbiting a star?" Are they all wrong, and you're right?

I'm not gonna fuckin' baby feed this shit to you. Go fuckin' figure it out if it's pissing you off so much.

And texta, I don't read college text books because, well, I'm not in fuckin' college. The astronomy of star trek? Please... The only reason I list the last three minutes is because it happens to be my favorite one. It's the only one I decided to buy because I was sick of checking it out from school.

Not everything comes out of a text book, or a dictionary you two. You're both more shallow than my kitchen sink.

[Switch Kicker]

Double post, glitch up... thingy....

[Switch Kicker]

double post glitch up thingy...

[Blue_turnip]

Who needs facts now, asshole. By the way, blackholes aren't planets, they were stars.

Yeah, dumbass. they "WERE" stars.

Wow. You're so fuckin' illiterate it's sickening. You can't argue about what something IS by stating what it USED to be.

You're such a fuckwit lol. Blackholes aren't planets or stars. They're black holes. You argued that they are planets, i'm arguing that they're not planets, and that they WERE stars, that is, prior to being a blackhole, they were a star.

[cammel]

Alright I just looked in the astronomy textbook I have from UC Berkeley and it defined a planet as "A celestial body of substantial size (more than 1000 km across), basically non-radiating and of insufficient mass for nuclear reactions ever to begin, ordinarily in orbit around a star"

It sounds like there can be planets not orbiting stars. But really who gives a shit? How can you argue about something so stupid and trivial.

Just for clarity; a star does not normally become a black hole; it usually forms a supernova, however under extremely special, unlikely circumstances, it can. Theoretically.

First, most stars do not end their lives in supernovae. Most stars become red giants, shed their outer layer which becomes a planetary nebulae, and the core is left as a white dwarf. That is what our star will do.


If a star has sufficient mass, it will fuse all its hydrogen into helium then carbon then oxygen then silicon and then finally iron. At that point iron cannot be fused any longer and there is not the force of fusion pushing the star out and gravity pulls it in on itself. THEN you have a supernova when that explodes.

And if the core is sufficiently large (about 2~3 solar masses) after this explosion the core will collapse upon itself and form a black hole.

Sure, it is "Theoretical" but scientists are pretty damn certain that they exist.

A black hole is created when ANY body of mass is put under pressure great enough to cause implosion. Solid or liquid does not matter, because the plasma in a star would be condenced to density as great as that of a planet anyway. I think the chances of a stable black hole are infintesimal, but then, that's what science is about. Taking chances for the sake of knowledge.

LMAO. What are you talking about? Yea, if you condense anything to a density that light cant escape from it, it will be a black hole by definition but there only way a substantial black hole would be formed is by the process above. And also a black hole seems to me to be one of the most stable things there is. Stellar ones that is. The microscopic ones that might be made at CERN will certainly be unstable.

Who needs facts now, asshole. By the way, blackholes aren't planets, they were stars.

Yeah, dumbass. they "WERE" stars.

Lol are you responding to your own post here? I think that switch kicker knows full well that black holes were stars... he said earlier they were created from stars.

You arent really adding anything to this discussion... you're just flaming at switch kicker.

[Blue_turnip]

You arent really adding anything to this discussion... you're just flaming at switch kicker.

Lol no shit sherlock. I looked in this thread and saw that he had referenced facts. He payed out others pretty hard for it and i found that quite hypocritical.

Alright I just looked in the astronomy textbook I have from UC Berkeley and it defined a planet as "A celestial body of substantial size (more than 1000 km across), basically non-radiating and of insufficient mass for nuclear reactions ever to begin, ordinarily in orbit around a star"

If black holes are so dense that not even light escapes the gravitational pull(fair feat since light has no mass), then its unlikely they're 1000km across. Meaning they're not a planet.

[Switch Kicker]

If black holes are so dense that not even light escapes the gravitational pull(fair feat since light has no mass), then its unlikely they're 1000km across. Meaning they're not a planet.

Oh my fucking god wow... Just fuckin' leave. You haven't a clue, just how ignorant, and how much you lack in knowledge about physics and astronomy.

First off, light DOES have mass. Light has infinite mass, genius. Which is why it can be seen from an INFINITE distance. If you don't know this, then you have failed any and ever physics class, and/or science class you have ever taken, because this is extremely common knowledge.

Also, a planet is not defined by it's size ass wipe. It only needs to have enough mass to force itself into a sphere.

An another thing you also seem to think you know, but actually know nothing about... Black holes are usually SMALLER than most stars. They're mass is so great, that their gravity quite literally CRUSHES all the atoms together, and forces out all the excess space between each electron, neutron, and proton.

Blue turnip, you have proven again and again that you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Looks like Cammel did your research for you this time Jeremy. Lucky you.

One more time, for you Blue turnip. Black holes are usually created after a star dies during a super nova. Super novas happen pretty often, however it's rare that a super nova will create a black hole. It just depends. But when it does happen, black matter is formed, which weighs a fuckin' lot, tbsp of it weighs more than anything that's transportable on the Earth. It all clumps together after thousands, maybe millions of years, and get so massive that it continually implodes on itself and gets smaller, and heavier, and then next thing you know. Light can't escape from it.

Want proof that light has gravity, seeing as you obviously aren't going to read a book on it. Any time there's a full eclipse, there's a crown around the moon. That's light from the sun, being bent around the moon's gravity. Einstein proved that a long while ago.

[flockpocken]

i heard this report from steven hawking once on TV. he said that in the middle of black holes is a ball of infinity gravity.

Black holes can be of almost any mass. Since gravity increases in strength as volume is decreased, almost any object sufficiently compressed will become a black hole. However, when black holes form naturally, only a few mass ranges are common.

so basically if you get sucked in a black hole, your screwed cause it take infinity strength to get out lol.

According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity".

[Blue_turnip]

If black holes are so dense that not even light escapes the gravitational pull(fair feat since light has no mass), then its unlikely they're 1000km across. Meaning they're not a planet.

Oh my fucking god wow... Just fuckin' leave. You haven't a clue, just how ignorant, and how much you lack in knowledge about physics and astronomy.

First off, light DOES have mass. Light has infinite mass, genius. Which is why it can be seen from an INFINITE distance. If you don't know this, then you have failed any and ever physics class, and/or science class you have ever taken, because this is extremely common knowledge.

Light has an infinite mass? hahahahahaha. Omg, that defies special relativity in almost every way it can be seen. Light has no mass whatsoever, thats the reason it can be accelerated to the speed of, well, light. Arguing that light has mass is pretty bad. Arguing that it has infinite mass, and at the same time claiming to be some genius on the topic is the most fucked up thing i've heard.

An another thing you also seem to think you know, but actually know nothing about... Black holes are usually SMALLER than most stars. They're mass is so great, that their gravity quite literally CRUSHES all the atoms together, and forces out all the excess space between each electron, neutron, and proton.

Wtf, I just said that in my last post:

If black holes are so dense that not even light escapes the gravitational pull(fair feat since light has no mass), then its unlikely they're 1000km across. Meaning they're not a planet.

Yeah, i was talking about the massive density of black holes, and the fact that they're less than 1000km across. You should have been able to deduce from that that I know they're smaller than stars, fuckwit.

Also, a planet is not defined by it's size ass wipe. It only needs to have enough mass to force itself into a sphere.

What the fuck, I was just referencing an astronomy textbook. You're merely making up your own definitions. Unfortunately, definitions coming from a guy who think light has infinite mass don't hold much weight in the real world.

my god... 'Light has infinite mass", possibly the stupidest thing i've heard.

Oh and for the record I most certainly have not failed 'any and ever physics class, and/or science class have ever taken'

[Blue_turnip]

Want proof that light has gravity, seeing as you obviously aren't going to read a book on it. Any time there's a full eclipse, there's a crown around the moon. That's light from the sun, being bent around the moon's gravity. Einstein proved that a long while ago.

How is this 'proof'? I've already said light can be manipulated by gravity, i said that when talking about the black hole sucking light in. It's unknown as to why light can be affected by gravity when it has no mass, but many argue its because large masses have an effect on spacetime around them, essentially delinearating (not a word, but you get what i mean) it. When light follows these curves in space, we see can observe that the light doesn't go in a straight line, this is an indirect result of gravity. Thats basically the theory.

[Blue_turnip]

Light has infinite mass, genius. Which is why it can be seen from an INFINITE distance.

What has mass got to do witht he distance you see it from. Infact, if light hypothetically DID have infinite mass, we wouldn't be able to see it because it would take INFINITE energy to to move it that INFINITE distance.

What the fuck? and in any case, we have no proof that light can be seen from an infinite distance, because distance is, surprise suprise, FINITE.

Theres nothing more funny to toy with than a dumbass who thinks he knows stuff.

[Jeremy]

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".


1The eight "planets" are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

The resolution passed by the International Astronomy Union last year, that resulted in Pluto no longer being an official planet. You can base your entire argument on your misreading of a book and on the word "ordinarily," but personally I think going by the official definition by the body that decides the official definitions is the correct way to go.



Lets have a recount of your statements.

Black holes are planets.

Planets don't need to orbit around stars.

In fact neither of these statements are correct according to the official IAU definition of a planet or of black holes. Black holes are not planets, they are black holes. Black hole is a separately defined object to a planet. Planets are explicitly defined as objects that orbit around stars (as well as other criteria). Of course what I'm stating is not from some popular science book that only I've read, but from the International Astronomy Union, the official body for naming and defining astronomical terms. Not only that, but I haven't just claimed that these definitions exist, I've provided an exact location that everybody can read of where these things are said. Now you can continue with your ludicrous and clearly wrong statements, and you can continue with your silly insults, but I'm sure that everybody can see that the organisation representing the professional astronomers of the world probably has a better idea of what a "planet" is than you do.

http://www.iau.org
http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html


Now lets address your new statement.

Light as infinite mass and you would have failed every physics and science class if you don't know this.

I have taken physics and science classes all through my time at school and I will be studying science at university next year. I have never failed a science subject, in fact I have always achieved very high marks, and have even won awards with prize money in scientific competitions (such as the Australian Schools Science Competition, where I was the state winner in 1995).

I have never heard that light has infinite mass, and indeed have heard many contradictory claims to that statement. In fact one of the big questions in science has been the opposite of that, does light have a mass at all? In fact physics involving light is based around light not having a mass at all. Light having an infinite mass is ludicrous, it contradicts the work of Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and Compton etc.

Your statement couldn't be further from the truth. Again I can only assume when you make such outlandish statements that you're making it up, because no scientific book or organisation has ever claimed that light has an infinite mass. Put your hand out and see if the light hitting your hand weighs an infinite amount or not.

[Texta]

Light has infinite mass,

[Texta]

First off, light DOES have mass.

Wrong.

Light has infinite mass, genius.

Either this statement is right and all physics and chemistry is wrong or this statement is wrong and the last hundred to two hundred years of physics and chemistry study is right.

Which is why it can be seen from an INFINITE distance.

Wrong.

If you don't know this, then you have failed any and ever physics class, and/or science class you have ever taken, because this is extremely common knowledge.

I agree that it's extremely common knowledge... if you've CAUGHT THE MENTAL.

Also, a planet is not defined by it's size ass wipe. It only needs to have enough mass to force itself into a sphere.

Wrong.

An another thing you also seem to think you know, but actually know nothing about... Black holes are usually SMALLER than most stars.

Could be true.

They're mass is so great, that their gravity quite literally CRUSHES all the atoms together,

yup

and forces out all the excess space between each electron, neutron, and proton.

Wrong.

Want proof that light has gravity, seeing as you obviously aren't going to read a book on it. Any time there's a full eclipse, there's a crown around the moon. That's light from the sun, being bent around the moon's gravity. Einstein proved that a long while ago.

Wrong. Ridiculously wrong.

[Texta]

Light has infinite mass, genius.

Either this statement is right and all physics and chemistry is wrong or this statement is wrong and the last hundred to two hundred years of physics and chemistry study is right.

Just in case it wasn't clear the point I'm making is that this statement from switch_kicker is:

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

[Blue_turnip]

do I hear something? Oh, is that the schoolbus?? *honk* *honk*.

Hurry up, don't be late! Study well and have fun! One day if you work really hard you might get into agricultural science or something! lol.

gg, no re.

[Switch Kicker]

Texta, you're fuckin' obnoxious. There is no fucking way you're in an education facility higher than grade school. I refuse to believe it.

I'll get a text book from school in the next couple of days and quote from it that light has infinite mass. You're mentally fucked up if you think otherwise. It seriously, blows my mind, at the fact that you think light has no mass, yet you call yourself an educated person in physics and astronomy.

And Jeremy, that's really great that you've got high marks in all your science classes. But so have I, it's really nothing that special, and not hard to do, as long as you do your work, it's very easy actually. Light has infinite mass, and you're a fool to state otherwise. This statement is only true because you, Jeremy, of all people, should know better than to state the opposite of what you see in a book, because well, that's what you fuckin' do. Read essays for enjoyment that you find on the internet, and look up pointless shit. Yet, somehow, you get the nerve to come here and pull a you-ie on us and say otherwise.

You'd be hard pressed to find a book that stats anything other than the theory that light has infinite mass.

By the way, just because space is not finite (Which it can become according to many theories.), doesn't mean light can't be seen from infinite distance. There's no relation between the two at all.

[BenRea]

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion. Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics. It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.

Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?". One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang). And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.