black holes again...

Matthew Freestone · 05 Jul 1998, 13:57 · from urth-v0015.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Matthew Freestone <matthew at matthewf.demon.co.uk>
Subject: (urth) black holes again...
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:57:13 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0015-0117 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0015/0117.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Okay, this is definitely my last post on black holes unless I find some
scientific backup for either Prion's view or my own...

Prion:
>The initial size of the black hole doesn't have much to do with the
>time for the cycle to complete.  Any size of a hole would complete the
>process in under a minute (probably under thirty seconds, but I'm not
>sure).
This is what you keep saying, but as I pointed out in my last post,
saying it's so don't make it so. I'm assuming from your comments to
Jason V. that you aren't yourself involved in cutting edge research on
the topic, so what is the basis for your claim? I'll accept citations
from any recognised journal :-)

Prion:
>The calculations that an astrophysicist would have to perform would be
>how small the initial black hole would be before the outer part of the
>star exploded before the black hole finished (as it would if the hole
>was microscopic).  I explained that stars which naturally create black
>holes at their cores (which our sun will never be able to do) either
>are going to fall entirely into the black hole (if it's big enough to
>absorb it in some number of seconds) or partially explode (if it's
>smaller and takes a few extra seconds).
I didn't respond to this theory last time, but it seems to me to ignore
the crucial point that stars that go nova are already in the process of
collapse and this is what may create a central black hole. It doesn't
follow that putting a black hole in the centre of a main-sequence star
will have the same effect.

Just to come back to your original contention that the worm in the sun
was a wormhole because it couldn't be a black hole: I think that basing
this on current physical theories doesn't really help you:=20

On the one hand, wormholes are currently pure speculation on the part of
physicists - they have all kinds of weird properties that nobody knows
how to create. It's just as physically plausible to argue that it is
possible to moderate black holes absorption rates in some way (perhaps
Hawking radiation can be increased), as it is to claim that it is
possible to create wormholes.

On the other, the Urth universe is not necessarily similar to our own
anyway: there are no currently known equivalents to Briah, or to White
Fountains. Perhaps black holes work differently there.

Cheers,
--                              II         |\      _,,,---,,_
Matt Freestone                  II    zzz. /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_.
matthew at matthewf.demon.co.uk    II        |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'
www.matthewf.demon.co.uk/       II       '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net