What would happen if a small black hole (the size of a baseball) fly into the earth?
NIggers would call it racist.
>>748085877
/thread
End of the world.
Also. Checked.
>>748085755
lets find out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHBGFKLHZQ
>>748085755
>What would happen if a small black hole fly into the earth?
We wouldn't have to be subjected to your horrendous grammar.
It would probably destroy Earth soon enough
Well, I'm not an astrophysicist, but the way I understand black holes, they can't really fly into anything. The gravitational force is such that things only fly into it.
>>748085755
Stars would fall or some shit. Maybe somebody would tell me what I'm doing wrong at the gym. Only been asking for four years.
>>748085755
it would become a large black hole
If we were to experience a black hole then the sun would turn black and all across the world would hear Soundgarden.
>>748086004
>We wouldn't have to be
Speaking of horrendous grammar, has anyone warned you against using passive voice? It often results in horrendous grammar.
>>748085755
Something akin to snakes on a plane?
>>748086235
Depending on speed, probably pass through earth, absorbing anything within it's schwarzschild radius.
tl,dr :mother of all earthquakes and radiation
>>748085755
if it collided with earth for some reason, its gravitational force would start sucking in everything it can, expanding its event horizon and eventually annihilating the whole planet
following that, there's a good chance the moon would also get caught in the process
other planets would probably remain fine until the black hole moves close enough to them to catch them
>>748085755
its not fucking possible to be that small
>>748085755
explosion x1000000000 Hiroshima
create a black hole the size of a baseball and swing that mf out of my planet
>>748085755
Something that small would not last long due to Hawking radiation.
There is a theory that the Tunguska Blast was a micro black hole colliding with the Earth.
Black holes have mass, and while that mass is extreme, the gravitational pull is still confined. A pin head sized black hole would be harmless to the Earth
Nothing, it would dissipate before it could do much harm. Although it might cause a huge amount of some kind of radiation that would fuck something up.
>>748086491
it is
anything of any size can become a black hole if it gets massive/dense enough
i'm pretty sure black holes are "objects" with an immense amount of ultra-mass, therefore you could theoretically touch them (it's not just an empty space). so i'd assume if it collided with something it would break the fuck out of it, whatever it is. if it hit the earth it'd probably create a massive fucking crater our just outright break the earth as if it was a ball of glass.
>>748086575
Why can't teh Tunguska Blast just be a semi-normal, otherwise boring space rock or comet?
>>748086575
isnt the Hawking radiation a super fucking slow process?
I'm fairly sure a ball-sized black hole colliding with earth would suck in faster than radiating out, thus getting bigger progressively in a chain reaction?
>>748085755
Depends on its mass. Micro black holes are thought to collide with the Earth from time to time, causing seismic events which can be measured with our instruments. Given its small size, it would either shoot through the Earth leaving a baseball-sized void behind (which pressure would fill almost instantly) or it would be drawn to the centre of the Earth and begin devouring matter, eventually consuming the Earth over the next few billion years.
>>748086753
kek, yes, look it up
there's a name for that size/density critical limit, i just can't recall it, anyone can tell?
>>748086753
Nice argument, faggot.
Kurzgesagt has a great video on this
>>748086643
you're dense enough
You mean a sphere of annihilation?
>>748086892
The Chandrasekhar Limit.
>>748086938
yeah its here >>748085985
>>748086909
you retard theres no need of arguments against santa claus and unicorns
>>748087225
its 2017, you need arguments for even the most retarded obvious things now
>>748087279
>>748087225
Yeah, and the earth is flat amirite?
>>748086051
black holes are a tangible object like a star, just that their gravitation is so high you can't see them due to light being sucked in as well. they leave an astronomical impression on spacetime wherever they exist, but they most certainly do move about. there are dual systems that orbit eachother as well
>>748085755
The black hoe would get fucked if it comes any near me tats sure
>>748087346
kek, sure anon, sure
also the government is actively putting chemicals in tap water to turn people gay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRLCBb7qK8
>>748087469
>that youtube link
Fucking hell, mate. People don't take this seriously, do they?
>>748087408
that is correct
though i would be surprised that any of them has any high velocity trajectory other than following the grand motion of its galaxy
>>748087540
I hope not m8, but I'm sure there's a few....
>>748086051
theyre heavy like fuck so its hard to stop or accelerate them
>>748085755
>(the size of a baseball)
that's a very large black hole though..
>>748086892
it's a theory, but there are more substantial theories which suggest supermassive blackholes are capable of sucking up all matter (including other black holes) and energy in the universe
>>748087540
well it's been proven that water treatment facilities only manage to clear 70% of the pollutants, mostly plastic gets through, when injested by males it generally ends up working the same way as estrogen, feminizing the male population. then there's the fact that all those drugs people are pissing/shitting out end up being recycled by the water systems...
it's bretty bad
>>748085877
http://www.npr.org/sections/newsandviews/2008/07/is_black_hole_a_racist_term.html
>>748086222
Spoonman
>>748088248
mfw
fuck people are dumb
>>748086892
You probably mean the schwarzschild radius
Mass of black hole with a schwarzschild radius of a baseball is 1.59X10^26 KG, so only a few orders of magnitude more massive than the earth
>>748085755
We die
if the earth would become a black hole it would be as big as a marble if i remeber correctly
so i think it´s safe to say we would be fucked
black holes' life spans scale with their size
a black hole the size of a baseball would last a few seconds tops
>>748088900
Probably wouldn't be the mass that would kill us tho, since it's a small black hole it's gonna be real fucking hot, like 4.87X10^20 K hot.
>>748085755
but I don't want to be fucking black
I wanna ride this white thing out as long as I can
ya know.. credit scores and privilege and all
>>748089271
the time warp aspect of it would also be interesting to witness
A blackhole with a radius of a basketball is more mass than the earth by a lot, but less than something like Jupiter or Saturn. It'd wreck the shit out of the earth as mass gets converted right to energy as it's falling into the black hole, making big boom.
>>748089098
you have it backwards, retard.
>>748089271
>implying baseball sized black holes are small
they're bigger than the blackholes which are capable of swallowing stars...
>>748085755
Well considering the size of a black hole is hard to get, so let's start with the size of a neutron star just under the Chandrasekhar limit which is roughly the size of a black hole at its smallest size so a baseball sized one of it were created under the universes laws would essentially "evaporate" instantly because it does not contain the mass to sustain its form. I hope this helps you.
>>748089509
Wtf are you on about, the baseball black hole is less massive than Jupiter it ain't eating any stars, it's not even a viable black hole. It's so hot it would evaporate basically instantly xd
>>748089271
bet there would be a lot of rap music too
>>748085755
>>748089456
basketball? He said baseball nitwit.
you got get excited by the black part didn't ya
>>748087589
Actually NASA already shown that they can move extremely fast.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-182.html
>>748089853
>baseball sized black hole
>less mass than jupiter
do people this stupid actually exist?
it'll grow exponentially on its way to earth, and if it starts on earth (impossible to start at that size but ay whatever) it'll quickly devour earth while continuing to devour the rest of the solar system
>>748090118
we don't call them black holes anymore
they're called Low Income Housing now
>>748090199
intradesting
>>748090203
Calling me retarded while not knowing the mass of Jupiter. Mass of Jupiter is 1.898X10^27 kg, our black hole is 1.59X10^26 kg. Besides as I've already stated the black hole would evaporate instantly anyway.
>>748085755
How do you know a black hole the size of a baseball is "small"? Actually, noone knows how big black wholes are, all we know is their masses and Schwarzschild radii.
>>748090526
yeah we don't know for the "hole" itself, its center, where the mass is
but commonly, the black hole's size is determined by its event horizon
>>748087408
Not sucked in. They curve spacetime so the light is still traveling in a straight line on a curve that is infinite. Imagine a trampoline surface. Draw a straight line with an arrow pointing at the centre with a ruler. This is your light. Now put super heavy object on trampoline and this light is never getting to the edge, the event horizon.
>>748090525
>we can quantify the mass of something we can only see and have barely probed, not like the gravitational equations and cause and effect it has can't be caused by some other forces
you realize supermassive blackholes start off as even smaller than that of a baseball... right?
>>748090760
that's exactly what he said you fucking retard
>>748090760
instructions unclear
you do know that mass (the curve) isnt infinite at the event horizon, right? photons and other stuff can go through, it's the point of no return, where theoretically information is stored
>>748090832
they don't tho, they start off as stars many times larger than the sun, small black holes don't work because As a a black hole gets smaller it gets hotter and as it gets hotter it loses more energy into space, effectively losing mass to the space around it.
>>748090891
Sucked is the wrong term bell end. Suction is to do with pressure. Totally different principle. Although I suspect your mum could unify these two principals by simultaneously being fat enough to bend spacetime and suck off all the blacks in her neighbourhood. Shit, you just discovered a thing. I'm calling Nobel now.
>>748086774
A black hole large enough to sustain itself for any meaningful amount of time is still REALLY small. A baseball sized object (which creates the black hole.. I assume that's what Op meant) would be quite a large black hole actually. Orders of magnitude more massive than the sun. So it wouldn't collide with us, we would go and hit it.
>>748086575
This
>>748091143
space is in freefall as fast if not faster than light can travel through space.
"sucked" is appropriate, dipshit.
>>748085755
this watch?v=8nHBGFKLHZQ
>>748091126
>they start off as stars many times larger than the sun
indeed, and then they condense whatever part of the super novae material was left over to a point as small as the tip of a cut diamond space can not sustain such mass in such a small point which in turn creates the blackhole, eventually as the blackhole sucks more spacetime, matter and energy, it grows in size.
>>748085755
We would all die
>>748091219
A black hole´s size is defined by it´s Schwarzschild Radius, which in turn is dependent of the mass of the object. The objects size is always zero, regardless of its mass - baseball or sun. The Hawking radiation is also dependent on the mass of the object. The more mass, the more time it takes to evaporate. A baseball massed object would evaporate in a few seconds
>>748091350
>space is in freefall as fast if not faster than light can travel through space
inb4 some rtard will try to refute that
>>748091350
Spacetime is stretched so far that light cannot escape. There is no suction involved. There is no giant vacuum at the bottom of a black hole. It literally is four dimensions stretched to infinity.
Semantics. One you are in you are not coming back out.
>>748091535
smallest current known black whole is 3.8 solar masses, so it has a radius of 11200 m which is a fuck load bigger than a baseball.
>>748091691
I was pretty off. The hole would evaporate almost immediately
>>748091802
you guys are debating "litteral/physical" suction vs "apparence/effect" of suction
for all intents and purposes a black hole is sucking in stuff - even tho, yes, there is no "suction"
>ITT: pretentious faglords with no physics degrees thinking that they understand what black holes are or do.
Even Einstein couldn't figure it all out, i highly doubt the retards on this website can.
>>748091934
I was wrong again!
A baseball sized (5 inches) black hole would need the mass of Uranus or Neptune and that fucker would be very stable...
>>748085755
>blackhole
>fly
>"into" earth
do you even physics?
>>748092199
>implying and projecting
>>748087408
so what would happen if one black hole got sucked into the other black hole, who would win?
>>748092320
Oh, so you've seen a black hole then? You've experimented on one? Which spaceship did you use to fly all the way there? Or do you mean, you saw Interstellar once and now you're a physics expert?
>>748092328
wouldnt they merge?
>>748092328
the form an even larger black hole, this is how our universe dies, an eventually is reborn (white hole aka big bang)
>>748092418
I heard there is a black hole around uranus...
>>748092418
dude, keep your pants on
its not because we don't each have 6 nobel prizes that we can't have any substantial knowledge on the subject and discuss about it
how sad are you
>>748092449
that not the most likely theory though
when all energy is dissipated and spent, the Universe might stay dormant forever (excluding small quantum fluctuations)
>>748091802
>There is no giant vacuum at the bottom of a black hole
possible albeit unlikely. fuck you and your certainties on a topic about a theory.
>It literally is four dimensions stretched to infinity.
and your level of retardation is literally infinite.
>>748092666
>It literally is four dimensions stretched to infinity.
that's accurate though, spacetime is 4D (if you consider time being a dimension) and possibly gets stretched infinitely
time and space even switch with each other at some point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI
>>748092625
gravity will pull everything back eventually, and teh cycle will likely continue infinitely, i'd be less surprised if the universe ending black hole ended up dispersing matter so far and wide that gravity wont matter, but that'd be impossible considering its own gravitational pull from the moment it bursts.
which leads to a rather fundamental question, does the tug on spacetime cease immediately following the death of a blackhole, or do the ripples continue to drag things to its point until eventually balancing itself as spacetime is no longer being sucked, or scarier, end up unfolding spacetime and pushing things outwards throughout all of spacetime at once (but again would this take time? or would be not be able to notice it)..
>>748092865
>that's accurate though, spacetime is 4D (if you consider time being a dimension) and possibly gets stretched infinitely
>stretching spacetime infinitely in a predetermined size of a blackhole
that doesn't sound right at all. it'd be pulling space/time aka gravity, "stretching spacetime" is ridiculous as you're literally stretching nothing, infinitely.... unless you wish to claim the above which is space time being squished together to as dense a point as possible
>>748092278
How do you get a mass of 1,02*10^26kg?
With r = (2GM)/c^2 I get 25*10^24 for a Schwarzschild radius of 3,7cm.
>>748093894
mad respect for anyone who is capable of and dedicated enough to engage properly with these sorts of puzzles for the sake of humanity
>>748093302
>gravity will pull everything back eventually, and teh cycle will likely continue infinitely
that's the big crunch scenario, but its pretty much disproven by the discovery that dark energy causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, overthrowing the power of gravity on the largest of scale (this has been the case for a few billion years now, about a 1/3 of the universe's age if im not mistaking)
>does the tug on spacetime cease immediately following the death of a blackhole
the gravity pull stops affecting spacetime at lightspeed, there is no pushing or counter effect
> "stretching spacetime" is ridiculous as you're literally stretching nothing, infinitely
its a bit counter-intuitive, but you can't consider spacetime as "nothing", its more like the fabric of everything, the invisible substrate of the universe. gravity literally exerts a pull, or stretch, on it thus affecting both time and space
black holes are singularities because, like the big bang, they cause equations to fail due to infinity showing up it them. the consensus is indeed that spacetime gets stretched infinitely. another option would be that spacetime ruptures and things sucked in emerge "on the other side", but its less likely. white holes haven't been found yet, so this "other side" would need to be another dimension external to our own
>>748092504
Nobody has substantial knowledge on the topic, retard. Nobody has empirical proof of what a black hole is. You are the sad one for debating something that nobody understands.
>>748085755
You wouldn't have time to kiss your ass goodbye
>>748085755
Black holes dont fly around, matter moves towards them. A black hole the size of a baseball would dissipate quickly due to hawking radiation. We actually create microscopic black holes here on earth in particle colliders but they dissipate immediately
>>748085755
it would Suck if that happened ;(
>>748094071
Dark energy was not "discovered." It's not a thing. It's just a label slapped onto huge holes in our understanding of the universe to make numbers add up. It's "here be dragons," and nothing more.
>>748094336
>but they dissipate immediately
for now...
>>748094071
The only white hole this universe ever experienced was the big bang
>>748094336
As mentioned before, a black hole with an event horizon of 0,037m radius (the radius of a baseball) would take a lot longer to dissipate than the assumed age of the universe.
>>748094446
the phenomenon of accelerating expansion was discovered
i'm aware that "dark" = placeholder name for unknown thing currently under research
>>748094071
>that's the big crunch scenario, but its pretty much disproven by the discovery that dark energy causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, overthrowing the power of gravity on the largest of scale (this has been the case for a few billion years now, about a 1/3 of the universe's age if im not mistaking)
big crunch big bang, white hole, created by the largest black hole. dark energy and the belief that we know the age of the universe or its size is retarded, literally constraining yourself to things which can never be proven or disproven, might as well believe in god at that point.. for all we know light can only manage to traverse 14 billion lightyears before it loses all ability to continue traveling. we haven't been studying the universe nearly long enough to determine things are expanding, instead it's been proven things are converging into certain areas while making larger areas much more sparse of matter/energy.
>the gravity pull stops affecting spacetime at lightspeed, there is no pushing or counter effect
i find that hard to believe, if black holes are sucking in spacetime and condensing it, wouldn't it be right to think that when the blackhole eventually dissipates the space which was condensed would also unfold? then again adding more nothing to nothing is still nothing, so who knows, perhaps time is locked in the condensed state of space forever after a black hole has had its way with it
>its more like the fabric of everything
see above lol
>>748094538
its a theory, yes
>>748094562
So then a black hole the size of a baseball would be older than the universe?
>>748094562
that's not even accounting for the energy/matter it's intaking and subsequently adding to its size during its lifespan
>>748086460
>expanding its event horizon
Bro, do you even physics??
>>748094737
Um... no...
The time it takes to dissipate doesn't say anything about its age.
>>748085755
Merica would kick it's ass like always. Fucking loser. Just ask Trump.
>>748086460
Nah, man. A black hole the size of a baseball would have nine godzillion metric fucktons of mass and if it were right next to the earth it would be affecting everything from the sun. The planets would have no chance at all.
>>748094662
many of your assumptions are less reasonable than what people actively researching these subjects conclude, though
theories are intertwined and corrolate with each other, they must fit into a plausible model that includes everything, which is in constant scrutiny and evolution, getting richer and more precise
there is a lot of data and mathematical models that agree with each other to back up what we're discussing here, so claiming "muuh there's no way to know" is false and lazy tbh
>>748087730
this. good luck giving these a push to get them going
>>748094824
black hole gets bigger, surface area gets bigger
what complicated about that?
black holes dont fly retard
black holes are deeply collapsed stars in the fabric in the universe stretching that fabric to the point where light cant escape anymore
Wiensteen would try to fuck it.
>>748086774
A blackhole evaporates through Hawking radiation more quickly the lower its mass.
Cosmic scale blackholes take trillions of years to evaporate while blackholes created say in the LHC with the mass of a proton will evaporate in fractions of a second
>>748095084
>theories are intertwined and corrolate with each other
lol no, currently it's a convoluted mess with contradictions everywhere. string theory is attempting to rectify that by bringing majority of the atomic theories together with the sub atomic, and the universal scale theories, but the people working on it haven't made much progress last time i checked.
>there is a lot of data and mathematical models that agree with each other to back up what we're discussing here, so claiming "muuh there's no way to know" is false and lazy tbh
i might've worded that poorly, i was merely stating my disbelief of dark matter or some sort of universally expanding effect given our current understanding of the universe and the amount of time of which we've been able to observe these actions.
although if there actually were such an effect, wouldn't it be evidence that space/time can expand just as it can be condensed into a black hole.
>>748095293
EXTRA! EXTRA!
FAT AMERICAN MAN SUCCESSFULLY GIVES UNWANTED ORAL SEX TO BLACK HOLE
>>748085755
Jews would try to sell it to goyims
>>748095343
and how long would the process need to happen in order for a black hole the size of a baseball would require said sized blackhole to dissipate?
blackholes are essentially supermassive stars which condense to a point even smaller than that of a baseball afterall..
imagine how much matter/energy would be required to make something that small so heavy as to create a singularity
>>748094662
>for all we know light can only manage to traverse 14 billion lightyears before it loses all ability to continue traveling
Dumbest thing I've read all day.
>>748096503
>light can travel infinitly even though we can only view it for around 10 billion years!
at which point they turn to xrays among other radiation to see further into space, hence why the age of the universe seems to constantly be increasing
>>748096631
>hence why the age of the universe seems to constantly be increasing
by billions of years btw.
or maybe we're just experiencing time so slowly, that the rest of the universe is moving through time billions of years faster than where we are in space currently experiences time.
>>748096724
the *stated* age.
but this time we totes have it right, trust us
>>748096631
>what is cosmic microwave background radiation
we can currently see as far as we can, we could only refine it with better technology
>>748096631
>at which point they turn to xrays
Okay, now THAT is the dumbest thing I've read all day.
You do realize that x-rays are higher energy than visible light, right?
right?
Wait...let me guess.
"As light passes through dark matter, the dark matter sucks the remaining dark out of the photons, accelerating them to non-visible light"
>>748097315
>the dark matter sucks the remaining dark out of the photons, accelerating them to non-visible light
if the big bang theory was good, they'd have jokes like this
10/10 m8
>>748097435
(i mean, the tv show, obviously)
![1200px-Yin_yang.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/sVZ8Xcn.png "1200px-Yin_yang.svg[1].png")
>>748087408
SpaceTime has two sides, like the yinyang symbole. While our universe expands the other side retracts and whan that side is a singualrity the space twist inside out and it starts over.
Black holes are tears in the wall between the two and thus everything sucked in will rematerialize on the other side.
>>748085755
Depends how fast its moving. In most cases it would gingerly warp/shear the planet for the briefest of moments, and then
>evaporate and explode
>>748085755
A black hole the size of a baseball would likely be many 100's of times over the mass of Earth, It wouldn't take long for the entire planet to be consumed by its gravitational field.
That being said, If a black hole that size were to make it to Earth, it would have already thrown off the rotations of the planets within our system and altered the position of the sun, such that by the time it reached us we would already have been long dead.
>>748089429
Time (to the observer on earth) would be virtually unchanged.
From outside out the black holes area of influence time would progress at its normal rate however.
>>748097315
what relevance does that have to the topic?
they're going to find a means to measure some other type of backround radiation then that'll be the new defining age of the universe..
obviously wasn't stating that light becomes xray radiation
>>748098448
Which means it would have to be traveling very fast to do all of this in what little time it would exist as a baseball sized black hole.
>>748098007
>2d model of our 4d universe
sweet..
>>748098891
with such high gravity, would time not be distorted?
would its quantified time be perceived as quickly for us, be extremely slow from someone elses perception
i'm quite curious as to the time dilating effects proposed by blackholes
>>748098448
Well, only ~4.2 Earth masses for that size, which wouldn't dramatically alter orbits in the short term. Still would wipe out Earth, though. Of course, no theorized mechanism can produce black holes of that size, so it's not going to be a major worry for me.
>>748099103
No, time is relative to the observer. We would perceive time to be progressing at its normal rate.
To anyone observing outside of the time dilation / contraction time would be slower / faster.
>>748095018
Isn't it more like a gorillion?
>>748099103
it would be
if the black hole is on earth, the havoc would happen to us in real-time, but an observer on Mars (ideally even further) would probably witness a weird shit show
>>748098899
But you did understand it.
Most people dont get anything more than 2 dimentions at the time. Hell most people cant even understand a gps map if it doesnt turn so forward allways is up.
>>748099478
We wouldn't know it as our time would basically stop at the event horizon.
we would never experience the destruction.
>>748099786
from an external observer, that is correct
but when you're the one victim of time dilation, you never perceive it, because you undergo the same acceleration as the spacetime around you
>>748099786
Time would never "stop" for us, to anyone observing from beyond time would appear to come to a stop, but in reality it would just be progressing very slowly.
Time can not stop at any given point.
>>748100653
>from beyond time would appear to come to a stop, but in reality it would just be progressing very slowly.
>not observing spacetime in its entirety through infinitely
how would time be relevant to such beings?
>>748101202
the observer could be a retarded cat on jupiter, it's irrelevant
and the slow time progress would only be a local event on what was once earth, the rest of time runs just fine
>>748101724
well
>beyond time
is that not a reference to the 5th dimension?
>>748092199
They sure can't. Especially if they can't capitalize a fucking "I".
>>748099456
a godzillion is a 1 with a godzilla of zeroes after it.
it's one gorillion gorillion.
>>748101950
its how this anon phrased it, im sure he meant
>to anyone observing from beyond (pause) time would appear [...]
not actually "beyond time"
>>748099786
Well, that's a product of our limitations in current models of physics.
I mean, consider it. In a model of the universe wherein energy cannot be created or destroyed, you cannot have information just... disappear from the system permanently. Radiation comes out of black holes over time, so the rest of the information that goes into them has to go somewhere. If that somewhere is out of the system and into some odd, other place, fine. But there's a problem when it just enters limbo and goes nowhere. That doesn't follow. Energy is said to exists, we can't have a lack of energy. That can't happen with our assumption that energy cannot be created or destroyed, on top of the assumption that nothing is ever leaving the given system. As in, black holes are not wormholes.
We would absolutely experience tumbling past the event horizon and, maybe, our inevitable destruction. It's just that no one else "outside" would. And then it would get very dark. And maybe we would die, but if we didn't after it got dark, there's a rumor (among many) that everything past the event horizon gets fried by insane levels of energy. Then we would absolutely die.
>>748100653
>Time can not stop at any given point.
Time is the "force" in nature whos job it is to equalize all energy in space. so when the last stars last heat has radiated and no more energy exists in the universe, then times job is done and it will stop.
quoted from memory. Freeman made it sound so much better.
>>748102413
Yes, that's a given.
Once the universe ceases to exist so will time.
>>748102413
holy food for thought anon
Blackholes that small dont exist, however if a black hole as small as possible collided with earth it would be basically the same thing as a star 10 times our sun colliding with us, except with less heat
>>748102192
Please see my first post on where stuff "goes"
>>748098007
>>748102636
Time is not seen as a separate "plane" in quantized model of classical physics, nor are there sides to space/spacetime. I do not agree with this.
>>748102413
>no more energy exists in the universe
energy cannot be created or destroyd, so that sounds nice but doesnt make any sense.
the energy will still be there, it will just be so spread out that you could not find any.
the heat death basically means all particles will be so far away from eachother they will never interract with eachother ever again.
>>748102413
energy is merely being converted, and not extinguishing itself.
heat is something else entirely, it can defined as the universe moving more quickly through time, which is likely why achieving absolute 0 is seemingly impossible, as that would require time to stop for the observer as well as the object you're trying to freeze, in order to prevent heat which is always radiating.
>>748102510
i highly doubt the universe will eventually cease existing.
at best when the last black hole traps everything in the universe, there may be a brief moment which all of the matter/energy can simply not move under its own weight, this would build immense pressure which is what lead to the theorization of a white hole
>>748102744
>the heat death basically means all particles will be so far away from eachother they will never interract with eachother ever again.
that is, if you presume heat to be the byproduct of friction, rather than the cause of heat.
>>748094737
Are you retarded?
>>748102744
As I said, quoted from memory.
Probably was "concentrations of energy" or something.
>>748102744
>>748102819
when all the last black holes have evaporated, its gonna be a cold death folks
no particle interaction = no heat
>>748102749
i'm tired and i apologize for my poor grammar at this point, after re-reading this.
>>748102819
i didnt make the name "heat death", but it makes sense, there will not be any detectable heat just like there will be no detectable energy either.
>>748102744
And then, in that soup of evenly distributed, most basic particles, there (allegedly) exists a chance that either the vacuum collapses into something else entirely (?), or a house of cards effect occurs, and a house of cards-esque moment occurs, and all those particles are forced from their most stable ground state to something else entirely (matter).
But then again, it could absolutely not, so.
>>748086575
>>748086634
>>748089098
>>748091691
>>748091934
>>748094336
>>748095343
A stable black hole would need at least about the mass of the moon to be stable, and it'd still be microscopic. So a black hole that's the size of a baseball would have way more mass then the required stable mass.
>>748103013
given enough time, the probability is still there
h y p o t h e t i c a l l y
>>748103086
than*
oops
>>748102965
all energy will be converted to matter? that's unlikely, as we haven't been able to convert "hot fusion" (the opposite of cold fusion which is the process of converting matter into energy, hot fusion would be converting energy into matter)
not to say it's impossible, just unlikely.
>>748102945
see>>748102749
>at best when the last black hole traps everything in the universe, there may be a brief moment which all of the matter/energy can simply not move under the immense weight of the entire universe, this would build immense pressure which is what would lead to a white hole
white hole=big bang. aka universe continues its cycle of expansion, and subsequent compression.
>>748102749
Again I refere to my first post.
>>748098007
>>748103252
>all energy will be converted to matter?
what part of "detectable" dont you get? all the stuff we have now will still be around, you will just never find it as every particle is moving away from you faster than the speed of light.
Every reply in this thread is fake and gay. Only thing black holes devour are dragon dildos, trust me.
t. black hole owner
>>748103141
Of course, nobody has the means to rigorously test this hypothesis. It's not like we have a spare universe to mess with, nor the means to even come close to that. But on paper, in a purely abstract realm, there's a nonzero chance. And it's just as well that, realistically, it never happens ever even though there's either a 99% chance, or a 1% chance.
A scientific hypothesis and a hypothesis are different. This is steps away from a scientific hypothesis where it counts. Because we can't test this yet.
>>748103252
>converting energy into matter
literally what happened during the big bang
>when the last black hole traps everything in the universe
your assumption is wrong; its not a competition where the last black hole will swallow everything.. most likely, 99.9999999999999% of the Universe will be out of its gravitational reach and that will be the end of it
>>748103287
i want to build that, but in a 3d model, which twists around rather than "magically it ends up on the opposite side a mirror of the previous"
>>748103384
the fact that blackholes are sucking up space, makes me believe space magically expanding to the point of which even atoms will be pulled apart, to be rather... stupid.
it would require the unfolding of space, rather than the condensing of it.
>>748103559
yeah I was actually agreeing with you
my post wasnt clear about that kek
I wonder if anyone attempted to account for the factor of possible intelligence in the universe.
>>748103660
False vacuums and true vacuums, sure. That could happen.
>>748103724
I know.
>>748103660
Once we can explain that 0 is the same as infinity but on the other side of the "mirror" I think cool shit is going to happen in sience.
I belive this to be true both in scale as in distance.
>>748103605
>literally what happened during the big bang
not exactly, all we know is that everything in the universe was condensed to a finite point, which in an instant began outpouring, no where does the theory suggest that elements and building blocks of atoms weren't present.
>its not a competition where the last black hole will swallow everything.. most likely, 99.9999999999999% of the Universe will be out of its gravitational reach and that will be the end of it
matter of opinion, due to gravity, it's far easier to believe that supermassive black holes will continue to gobble up matter/energy and eachother until all that's left is a black hole. again i find it rather stupid to believe the universe is unfolding, when our current grasp of gravity is the literal compression of space/time
So are black hole's move able or not? I'm seeing two sides and no conclusive argument
>>748103660
ever accelerating expansion is however the end we are moving towards, it sounding stupid to you makes no difference.
>>748103919
I don't find the unfolding of the universe that far-fetched. And our current grasp of gravity still brings many, many questions.
>>748103868
>0 is the same as infinity
in the sense that they do not exist?
sure..
>>748104023
I agree with infinity not existing as infinity is only as large as 1 over the highest number comprehensible by humans
>>748104022
indeed.
although the theories sort of compliment eachother, for the folding of the universe to occur, would not the universe first need to be unfolded?
i suppose this cycle will continue until your ultimate death occurs
>>748103919
okay, you can believe what you want, but it has been solidly demonstrated that:
>black holes have a long but not-infinite life span
>black holes have a limited reach
>the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate because of ??? (currently called dark energy), which dominates over gravity more and more as time passes. gravity is "local" while the expansion/acceleration permeates all of spacetime
>>748086497
I too remember being 11
>>748104242
sauce
"Speedup or slowdown versus age of universe. The Big Bang is on the left, 13.7 billion years ago"
>>748104347
kek
>>748103933
Allegedly black holes can wobble and rotate. Relativity is such that the perspective of the observer determines the way the system behaves; everything is relative to who's looking, and from where. Maybe black holes do move beyond wobbles or rotations, I don't know.
I imagine it would be hard to tell if you were close enough to measure one, though. Besides gravitation waves, maybe? So, maybe it's more easy to say they don't move.
>>748104171
Well, I don't think so. I'd see the Big Bang model as an extrapolation instead of an unfolding. A singularity inevitably being expanded by, itself. Or, the fundamental forces that inevitably forced its expansion outwards from itself to reach a more stable state than being a singularity.
>>748104242
There are models which don't use dark energy or dark matter, but gravity itself.
>>748104347
He's probably right. A black hole of that size would be expelling an insane amount of Hawking Radiation.
>>748104461
>There are models which don't use dark energy or dark matter, but gravity itself.
humm.. sauce?
>>748085755
It would probably suck
>>748104648
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
Everything is theory when it comes to stuff like this, but I mean, it's food for thought. And it seems like it bridges some of the gaps when it comes to the quantization of classical physics- the unification of physics for particularly small things, and particularly big things.
>>748103942
>ever accelerating expansion is however the end we are moving towards
what makes you believe there's enough energy in the universe for it to expand infinitely to such a point which gravity is no longer a factor?
you would have to cut the current bonds and gravitational effects already in place throughout the universe for what you're suggesting to occur.
perhaps this is possible during any/every bigbang event. other than those brief moments after the big bang though, i don't see how it could happen once matter starts condensing and bending spacetime and pulling all matter/energy back together, and here we are caught in the middle of said catastrophic events.
>>748104242
>black holes have a long but not-infinite life span
mhm, and when large enough, they create whiteholes (aka the expansion of the universe, the big bang)
>black holes have a limited reach
only determined by their size, when you take into account the fact that they are growing and gobbling eachother up well it's safe to say a universal sized black hole will likely have the reach to pull back all matter/energy sent out into the universe back into it.
>the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate because of ??? (currently called dark energy), which dominates over gravity more and more as time passes. gravity is "local" while the expansion/acceleration permeates all of spacetime
preposterous, things are condensing which are creating "empty dark matter" zones, but even if things were drifting apart and not becoming more condensed in certain zones, you're proposing the universes fabric is infinite in size and all matter/energy is capable of reaching out infinitely as well.
>>748104461
>Maybe black holes do move beyond wobbles or rotations,
this is what led to the belief that black holes send out ripples and waves throughout the fabric of spacetime, even while it continues to gobble up spacetime
>>748104820
>what makes you believe there's enough energy in the universe for it to expand infinitely
im only doing an observation here, we dont understand dark matter or dark energy so who knows, but to make the claims you are making, you need to understand dark energy.
where are you even getting this idea that it will all come back together?
>>748105013
Yep.
>>748105050
>im only doing an observation here, we dont understand dark matter or dark energy so who knows
it hasn't even been proven, only theorized as the cause of these observed zones of space which are seemingly empty
>>748103933
Of course they can move. They just sensed gravitational waves of two black holes colliding.
To move a black hole you need an object that has a similar mass to the black hole.
The smallest black hole we know of has a mass of 3.8 times that of the sun.
Also, the entire galaxy is moving, and at the centre of the galaxy is a supermassive black hole, so if the galaxy is moving, but the sm black hole is still at the centre, then the black holes must also be moving.
>>748104809
nice, thanks anon
>>748104820
>when large enough, they create whiteholes
no white hole has ever been observed despite a lot of efforts
the hypothesis made sense but it turned out to lead nowhere.. given their brightness and radiation level, they would have been observed by now
>a universal sized black hole will [...]
incorrect assumption
>things are condensing which are creating "empty dark matter" zones
again, incorrect
things are regrouped in clusters, yes, but overall (whole universe scale) things are moving apart from each other in a repulsive manner
>you're proposing the universes fabric is infinite in size and all matter/energy is capable of reaching out infinitely as well
no, the Universe could be finite and simply be expanding in an external, upper dimension or substrate
>>748085755
Literraly nothing. There's not enough energy it whould have to suck up to fuel the black hole before it vannished...
They cant fly but i imagine its like you take the rubber in paint and take the colours away
>>748105160
so are you going to answer the question or only point out things i already knew?
>>748105050
>where are you even getting this idea that it will all come back together?
yuutoob bideo xDDDDD
but really, it makes sense, for there to be expansion, there first must've been an event condensing the universe and matter, otherwise you may as well believe god splurged some jizz which created the big bang event and eventually lead to our creation.
how else could the big bang theory be wrapped up?
>>748105050
>where are you even getting this idea that it will all come back together?
Not him, but there is a theory called "the big crunch" that predicts the end of the universe being all matter coalescing back into one point.
>>748105370
>yuutoob bideo xDDDDD
but seriously guys, stop it with the big crunch or pendulum universe, it's been discarded for a while now, its bottom of the list in terms of evidence
>>748105370
so its basically an argument from ignorance then. there is 0 reason to link together the big bang and the end of the universe, other than "it makes sense to me".
maybe they are linked, there is just no way of knowing yet, but because you dont care you just want answers you might aswell believe god splurged some jizz, afterall magic can explain everything.
>>748087730
>They're heavy as fuck
Made me laugh so hard
>>748092014
>https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-182.html
There's a void of air in a black hole right? So there's suction!
>>748105208
>no white hole has ever been observed despite a lot of efforts
it's a universal creation event, of course it doesn't happen often, and likely wont happen on the small scale regardless of our efforts.
>a universal sized black hole will [...]
>incorrect assumption
ahmm blackholes grow in size, what is there to suggest that they would cease growing?
>things are regrouped in clusters, yes, but overall (whole universe scale) things are moving apart from each other in a repulsive manner
we haven't been observing the universe to come to this conclusion. for all we know it's just blackholes sucking up matter leaving empty zones, until they eventually collide with one another.
>no, the Universe could be finite and simply be expanding in an external, upper dimension or substrate
you lost me here, upper dimension? like y axis on the 4 dimensional plane of our existence? for their to be an expansion there must've been a condensed point, what you're saying is nothing (spacetime) can grow more spacetime. possible since nothing can easily be added to nothing, but again, i find it hard to believe
>>748105451
yes i've heard of it, there is also the big rip and the big freeze, so far it looks like its going to be a big freeze, thats where the evidence leads, so why say its something else?
>>748085985
we need to figure out a way to harness black holes, and use them as weapons
>>748105370
Well, maybe there wasn't a first event where the universe was condensed from something else. Maybe the universe wasn't even as it is now, maybe a change of states between two "different" points, simply wasn't true. Maybe the fundamental forces simply weren't present, or weren't at all. Maybe the universe wasn't even a singularity as we know to suggest that it was.
Is this universe the result of an incredibly massive black hole? Have we lived, and are we continuing to live in an event horizon that has pinched us off from the rest of something else entirely? Who knows. I don't.
>>748105798
how is gravity and ever expanding black holes magic?
once there's nothing left in the universe to grow the black hole, it's entirely feasible to believe the enormous energy and pressure of having the entire universe condensed into one point would cause a whitehole aka bing bang event, rather than simply having everything turn into hawking radiation (which too eventually should be eaten by a blackhole once large enough)
>>748105893
okay I'm gonna stop here because I've stated what the scientific evidence leads to and you keep coming back with opinions and things like "we haven't been observing the universe to come to this conclusion", which is just plain false:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html
Hello,
A black hole the size of a baseball would likely decay before it contacted any matter that would grow it enough to counteract it's decay. Miniature black holes are radically unstable, it would likely just dissipate.
The relative location between the earth and said black hole is quite important in this scenario. If the black hole is touching the earth their gravitational fields would pull each of them closer together at an astounding rate causing the black hole to consume all the matter around it in a snowball effect until the entire earth was consumed, likely making it stable. Very unlikely scenario.
>>748105979
Against whom?
>>748106055
>Is this universe the result of an incredibly massive black hole? Have we lived, and are we continuing to live in an event horizon that has pinched us off from the rest of something else entirely?
well if you believe there's a supermassive blackhole in the centre of our galaxy, i'd have to say yes to the latter question.
maybe there wasn't a begining, and the universe was always here repeating this cycle of growth, crunch, freeze, big bang
>>748106082
did i say gravity and black holes are magic?
>once there's nothing left in the universe to grow the black hole
there is no reason to believe it will all condense into 1 black hole.
stop making your own guesses and running with them and instead read on the subject or atLEAST stop talking about it as if you actually had a fucking clue.
>>748106264
But scientific observations and thought can change, anon.
>>748106359
Maybe.
You mean an event horizon as big as a baseball or the actual singularity?
The Earth would make a black hole the size of a marble. So you would be looking at something with Jupiter's gravity at least. Our planet plus the moon and Venus and Mars would be pulled in.
You'd die. Everyone would.
>>748106326
our selves
>>748106264
it's all just theory, if you find a model that you believe you like best and can refine, good for you.
>>748106398
>there is no reason to believe it will all condense into 1 black hole.
black holes eating other black holes, galaxies joining into even larger galaxies, there's tonnes of evidence everywhere in the cosmos to suggest blackholes grow and will continue to do so.
>>748106055
>Is this universe the result of an incredibly massive black hole? Have we lived, and are we continuing to live in an event horizon that has pinched us off from the rest of something else entirely?
That's the holographic principle, look it up
It's kinda scary, it could be real. Some string theorists have demonstrated that equations valid in our 4 dimensional current-shaped universe are equivalent to equations in a differently shaped 10 dimentional "universe" when gravity is removed. This suggests that our universe could be a projection (like the flat surface of a volume) of that multi-dimentional deeper universe.
>>748106627
congratulasion you just proved gravity and made yourself look even more stupid.
go read about the expansion of the universe before you have another discussion on the issue.
>>748106627
>it's all just theory
different teams observed it, compiled the data, and concluded it, but okay, im sure you're right anon...
>>748106641
>That's the holographic principle, look it up
oh man this takes me back, nearly ten years i remember reading a wall of text for hours about this theory.
someone(s) spent a lot of time detailing the holographic theory.
sadly i retained barely any of what i read, heh what a waste of time.
>>748106786
everything in the cosmos is always moving, it's only obvious to believe some of it will drift away from eachother due to inertia among other factors.
did you come up with the theory? is this why you're so sensitive to evidence which contradicts it?
what have you invested in the theory?
>>748085755
Earth would be ripped apart atom by atom by a black whole the size of a quarter, also, a black hole wouldn't just fly into a planet.
>>748106833
nah anon, learning is never a waste of time
it challenges and expands your views, and makes you thrive for more knowledge
even if you don't remember most of it, it's better than watching 122 seasons of CSI
>>748106641
Yeah, it's what I was alluding to. It is interesting- potentially, something or someone could do the same, here, again... and then you end up with some really interesting conclusions. Including, maybe, going "up". Or, going "sideways", "pocket-wise". Like bubbles on the brane of some volume of water.
>>748086051
everything has a gravitational effect on everything else.
you, sitting in your chair there, perturb the orbit of the sun, just a tiny bit. the earth (and you) and sun orbit each other around the center of gravity.
>>748085755
Nothing - it would have collapsed in on itself due to Hawking radiation on the way here.
>>748085755
We all die.
>>748107015
>nah anon, learning is never a waste of time
well, i spent a lot of time reading it, and didn't retain any of the information, so i didn't really learn anything.
that's what i get for being a teen reading universal theories all night till morning
>>748107009
i havent invested anything and have no personal stake, but when an observation of that importance shakes the scientific community that much, fits the data and model, and leads to countless insights in our understanding of the cosmos, its absurd to me that some dude will try his hardest to put it aside because he has a hunch or something
thats all
>>748107315
all of the same could be said for the big crunch though..
who knows, maybe >>748107020
is right and the galaxy clusters/blackholes are simply following a rigged line along the membrane of a 10 dimensional universe
>>748106641
Our universe is a realityshow on the 4D flatscreen in the 10D universe some beeings call life.
Fuck, thats depressing.
>>748085755
>What would happen if a small black hole (the size of a baseball) fly into the earth?
It would suck your brain out of your ear.
>>748087893
technically speaking, it is very large because that's like what, a black hole the size of earth condensed? but compared to other black holes it's very very small
if it wasnt able to 'eat' anything in the time that it took to fly to the earth, it would radiate away into nothing
>>748107090
you're thinking micro black holes.
a blackhole the size of a baseball would have come from something with the mass of like 5x the earth.
it takes fucking trillions of years for a (not micro)blackhole to evaporate from hawking radiation.
if this blackhole were moving fast enough it would fuck shit up and keep on its way. slow enough and the earth would orbit/get eaten out.
>>748085755
Assuming you mean the schwardschild radius is the same as a baseball then the blackhole would weigh ~2.5 *10^25 kg. The earth weighs 5.9 *10^24 kg. So, we'd definitely feel heavier. Not sure if it'd be strong enough to eat the planet at a rapid rate though.
>>748107659
just maybe
>>748107892
My god she's falling apart. Just have a look near his thumb.
Poor girl, falling into pieces and is all jizzed on.
>>748108046
>>748107659
and that kids, is where zen oh sama resides.
