[dleviwing]

A black hole is not an object that has gravity, it is an object that IS gravity; not normal atomic or subatomic matter. Evaporation can only occurs at the polar axes of the event horizon.

[Max™]

It is not an object at all.

It is a hole in spacetime.

It is a lack of object, I argue.

Wonder which of us is more of an expert on spacetime?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Max™

Wonder which of us is more of an expert on spacetime?

Obviously not you!

[Max™]

Enlighten me please, oh wise one.

Teach me about Spacetime and Relativity.

[buckeyballs]

Yo all wise ones! Itching to throw this out---and this thread seems to be in the area. Space (the grid) is spontaneously creating virtual particles and then they annihilate-( very simple observation---but please lend me your ear!) At the event horizon of a black hole, the negative-partner can be drawn into the hole, with the positive going off into our most wonderful physical universe (Hawking radiation ) Now the leap of faith--say our entire observable universe is in a mother of all black holes--HOLE. The explanation for the increase in the speed of expansion of our universe is our positive matter is being attracted to this leaking negative matter.

[ggullet]

Originally Posted by hawkingfan1

If a negative and positive sub atomic particle enter a black hole the positive one will be able to escape the black hole's pull but a negative sub atomic particle will be pulled in. This particle will cause the black hole to emitt microscopic radiation which will make light. Out of darkness there is light!

wait just a darn minute. wthayta. if they both go into the "black hole" then neither one escaped the pull. and if the positive was able to leave the black hole and return to the "white hole" then it's ability to escape the black is no greater then the negative's to escape the white, in which case the "white hole" would become dark and nothing has changed. the issue is the point of latent transference.

[G_burnett]

and why pray tell kind sirs would velocity of substance going in not play a role in the shape of the containment not having enough containment potential to hold it?

just a ponder ... kind regards. sage

[David Maes]

Einstein once said that black holes are metaphysical; so not correct.

Einstein's own mathematics predicted black holes; but Einstein had the opinion they could not be a part of real nature. (It's not because mathematics say they exist, this means they really do exist).

I once saw on National Geographic Channel how scientists used their instruments to look at the motion of certain stars; and they said that the only explanation for the phenomon they were looking at, was a black hole.

Would black holes be physical after all?

[G_burnett]

i think the polar state goes in sideways

[G_burnett]

i was just fooling there ... if as Dave would profess it is gravity then one might add it is gravity event or substance in motion to dense leaving behind void no void state to be filled ... emptiness does not draw in from nothing but in a push in universe the push will be the effect .. in a spin of course not forgetting Vincent our MIA friend.... consider a state of ever increasing velocity of substance not in linear but in an axial event. .. faster then light ?? maybe or the boundaries are not ... lets say defined enough yet to say faster as the wobble takes hold and bang (and i only use bang as a term others understand not to get into postulated belief of inverted torus event shape) ... no more black hole as containment parameter of potential is lost. IMHO g.