My first thought was "what about them"? They are of course what physicists consider the models of what BH's are. The same observations and data to prove the existence of BH's can be used to prove the existence Gravastars (eliminating the event horizon and singularity).

The concentration of mass of a BH, I would compare to that of regular water and "heavy water" (Deuterium). Thinking in terms of water being matter and the isotopes contained within heavy water being anti/dark matter. A star goes through it's life and burns off all it's fuel. Say we have a piece of dehydrated fruit. Add water to it, it expands in volume, even though it's

My first thought was "what about them"? They are of course what physicists consider the models of what BH's are. The same observations and data to prove the existence of BH's can be used to prove the existence Gravastars (eliminating the event horizon and singularity).

Contained within the of composition of a star, I would equate to that of regular water and "heavy water" (Deuterium). Thinking in terms of water being matter and the isotopes contained within heavy water being anti/dark matter. A star goes through it's life and burns off all it's fuel and condenses (eventually). Say we have a piece of dehydrated fruit. Add water to it, it expands in volume, even though you still have the same mass as before, it's just concentrated in dehydrated form. Now just reverse the process for a Gravastar. What is left behind after a star has used up all it's fuel would be dark/anti-matter (using the Deuterium analogy from above). The next logical step would be to try to explain the extraordinary high gravitational fields associated with these bodies.

Matter being the dominant component of our universe (by at least a 51.1% majority). BH's/Gravastars I believe in their concentrated form have "zones of influence". Kind of like a gang who controls one neighborhood of a large city. While their results of their activities can be felt throughout the city to one degree or another, most of it is felt in the immediate area where they reside (the attempt to hold onto territory). Instead of gravitational pull, I would suggest a form magnetism may be the major factor in the attraction that draws other bodies to BH's/Gravastars- using the "opposites attract" principle of magenetism. Think of matter as being positive pole and dark/anti matter being a negative pole. When you take two magnets- the stronger magnet always pulls the weaker one to it. Since this collision between matter and dark/anti matter isn't a direct one (like an asteroid hitting a planet), you wouldn't have the same kind of "explosion". It would be like deflected contact due to rotation of the bodies.

The matter and dark/anti matter interact. The understood result would be that they would cancel out each other; However, I believe the remaining dark/anti-matter contained within the matter would be absorbed by the BH/Gravastar. Like the human body does when eating. One eats an apple, the body extracts the nutrients to survive and grow, the rest is excreted. In this case, the byproducts of the are cast off as Hawking radiation and gamma ray "waste".

(edited to say : if I could only cancel out my previous incomplete post... uggggh).

The field equations of GR lose me in a mathematical sense. I also have trouble comprehending the claim that a depression can exist where a plane does not.

It is my understanding that Einstein's space-time, when void of matter and electromagnetic fields corresponds to Minkowski's space-time. If Euclidian geometry can work without matter, then space-time is flat when void of matter.

This brings up the issue of exactly how matter curves spacetime. The field equations quantify how, if I understand correctly.

A depression requires a plane from which to correspond it's very existence.

Wouldn't the very notion of a funnel-shaped black hole require a flat space-time plane from which to "grow"?

If space-time is not flat, then a depression is not possible as it is normally defined and understood. In space-time, wouldn't the event horizon then have to be of a spherical nature which completely encompasses the singularity as some sort of reverse force-field, rather than a funnel-shaped structure stemming from a non-existent plane?

Just a weird thought here...

Wouldn't anti-gravity be a product of anti-matter, just as gravity is a product of matter?

And considerng that, if enough anti-matter came together, could it to form a "white hole", which nothing could enter?

As I said, just a weird thought.

White holes have been theorized, however they have nothing to do with antimatter.

Think of grid on two demisional chart. now place a dot or point on that grid. Does the dot or point have a dimension? No it is merely a point in space. The same is true of quantum singularites or black holes. Only this time imagine it in a three deminsional grid, it would still be a point in space. Theoritical physics and mathematics have suggest that there could be numerous deminsions beyond the third deminsion. Black holes are points of such emmense gravity created by a collapsing star that ruptures the space/time fabric of our three dimensional universe. Where does all the water go when it goes down the drain? Into another dimension or universe or perhaps even somewhere far more complex. It has even been suggested that qusars are black holes of another dimension or universe on the form of white holes spilling into ours. Yes these can collide and interact with one another. They do what i call a "merge and purge" or they can push eachother away. It all depends on the flow of gravity

Mass warps spacetime.

Get enough into a small enough space and it will wrap spacetime around it completely . .


Bam black hole, not hard to imagine. Hopefully the LHC will move us closer to proper math to describe this at the plank scale.

I have heard that the center of this milky way galaxy is a black hole.

Is there any scientific date on this?

I think it is actually energy that warps spacetime,,,not wanting to argue, I may be wrong. I will look it up, if time allows!

no I won't look it up, when I went to the first google searched site, I clicked it and it started a down load from some unknown address. don't do it!

Did the singularities meet on Mingle?
I wanna meet a singularity...

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_031124.html

Usually it's because they're attracted to each other. Which is why I'm still a singularity.

What exactly are you talking about when you use the term "singularity?"

jb

anyone ever thought about what is the dark matter? It's the "stuff" which we don't see, and I don't know 70% of the universe?

It's not air but it's not "nothing" it has to be something, right?

Nit pick: 4% "observable" matter, 22% Dark Matter, 74% Dark Energy

It's not really a "thing" per se. It's simply "the unknown cause of an observed phenomenon".

We don't know the causes of X and Y. But nevertheless, we've made up labels to refer to those unknown causes. Those labels are DM and DE.

The reason the "Dark" labels were chosen is because the phenommena are similar to phenomena caused by matter and energy - but we can't see any matter and energy that would cause those phenomena.

Personally, I think the causes are our own incomplete understanding of the laws of the universe. That is, there isn't really some undetectable "stuff". It's just that we don't fully understand the "stuff" we do detect.

But that's just my (admitedly extremely ignorant) opinion.

Mass is energy. 95% of the weight of an atom is the energy holding the atom together and the other 5% is the nucleus.

If you really want to see a "black hole," just meet my ex-wife....she could suck up everything around, esp if it was money

Perhaps, to admit ignorance is to open self to far greater vision, giving way to others admitting ignorance and subsequent greater vision for all.

Well I'm not sure about "all". But from a personal perspective, I've learned quite a bit that I never would have learned had I not been able to admit at least a little ignorance. An obsessive need to always be right is probably the single most difficult barrier to overcome in learning new things - not to mention interpersonal relationships.