A black hole is a collapsed star... would there be much difference in mass from the star just prior to it's collapse and the black hole that is created after its collapse??
? There are billions of stars in the universe... matter (asteroids, dust... ) are falling inot these stars all the time... an asteriod that falls into a star is surly annihalated into the most basic of atomic particles?? It can't be that rare??
On Earth its a weak force... at the event horizon of a black hole it's gravity that rips matter to shreds??
While i total agree that gravity can influence things over a vast distance... when you get close up and personal with a large mass gravity will rip matter apart...
What I was trying...
Thanks for the reply... I'll apply a bit more thought to all this stuff.
I think you should look at my other post... because you are a Smartypants! We should have a beer together.
Thanks again for your reply
I have always seen massive objects (stars, black holes..) as cosmic vacuum cleaners... I assumed that the more massive an object is the more material will "gravitate" towards it...
I'm not sure if black holes are constantly getting larger or if they are getting smaller due to the effects of...
Strangely enough I have just post a question with a similar though in mind. Mass is a very important quality to have in our universe, the larger your mass the less chance you have of being annihilated.
My thinking being that as a black hole’s mass increases its gravity will increase this in...
Why is gravity thought to be a week force? I would agree that at the surface of our Earth it would appear to be week, after all we can stand on the surface of the Earth without risk of being pulled into it core.
But a black hole is another kettle of fish altogether, it's almost an atomic...