crash course on black holes

by taonut
Tags: black, confusion, crash, holes
taonut is offline
Nov22-13, 11:56 AM
P: 10
I had posted wanting a specific question answered and it was closed b/c i kept repeating my thoughts to try and get an answer. I'm not an expert, so I was wondering if any of you intelligent folks could enlighten me. I am not asking for a crash course on black holes, which is what i received last time. I am asking if the math that is used to determine that there is gravity could be also the same math to describe the center point of a spinning system that could be relatively empty. We assume there is mass because we assume we are spinning around some thing. But in other phenomenon such as hurricanes, particles spin around nothing. We could look at the clouds and say, well they must have gathered around some thing. But since we can measure that the eye of a hurricane is calm and only filled with atmosphere, we know that the clouds are spinning which creates the eye in the process. Could the stars be spinning around an empty point, and could we just be assuming that there is mass there, when in fact the opposite could be the case. My thoughts stem from articles I have read through physorg. com. I read one where they said in the Milky Way the stars are born at the same rate they die, and they were wondering where the gas came from to replace it. In another article they said that when black holes "eat", that they emit strong rays of particles or energy (burps they called it). In a hurricane the faster winds are near the eye. I was wondering if the actual event horizon of a black hole could be the portion shredding material and shooting it out? Is that feasable with the math on black holes? I am constantly learning from every field, and I'm the first to admit this is not my field of expertise. That's why I am asking you guys to seriously think this over and check out the math. My thoughts arise in a very rational manner within the bounds of the laws of physics based on phenomenon I know. Phenomenon often repeat throughout the universe, so I was wondering if this even makes sense? It seems the folks who posted on my last post were not understanding my question. I don't want to have to keep repeating myself and get called names. So please thoughfully answer my thoughts. I would appreciate it. This has been bothering me for awhile, strange as it sounds. I just want to know if my thought process is plausible, or if there is any evidence or math that absolutely refutes it. I am an academic in other fields and stay fairly well-rounded, but I'm headed down the law path at this point in life so I am dependent on other minds to help my mind reconcile the rifts in understanding I experience on this subject matter.
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on
A star's early chemistry shapes life-friendly atmospheres
Unique pair of supermassive black holes in an ordinary galaxy discovered
Red stars and big bulges: How black holes shape galaxies
adjacent is online now
Nov22-13, 12:08 PM
PF Gold
adjacent's Avatar
P: 859
Quote Quote by taonut View Post
We assume there is mass because we assume we are spinning around some thing.
From where did you find this statement?This is wrong.

Mass is the amount of matter present in a substance

Usually we assume that Force of gravity acts on the center of mass of the object.(To make calculations easier)
Stars does not spin around empty space.Inside stars,there is the core of it.

We know Earth has mass because it causes gravity.

Anything which has mass will cause gravity

Force of gravity between two masses, ##F=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}##
Where m_1 and m_2 is the masses of two objects.
G is the Universal Gravitational Constant
r is the distance between two object
berkeman is online now
Nov22-13, 12:13 PM
berkeman's Avatar
P: 39,716
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Confusion with a 2D FFT Electrical Engineering 2
help! confusion Calculus & Beyond Homework 0
Confusion!!! Introductory Physics Homework 2
Confusion again Introductory Physics Homework 4
prove that the lim (x->1) x^2 + 2 is NOT equal to 2.999? Calculus 6