Considering our current laws and understanding of the universe means blackholes should not exist.. It begs the question if we could even emulate a real blackhole in a game.. And not just a.. Stereotypical swirling thing of death
English
-
A few weeks ago a new theory emmerged. That black holes swallow matter for a short period of time and then repulse everything back in an implosion caused by the enormous density, then creating a white hole. The fact that we can't observe that part is because the initial black hole swallow light as well and disturbe the time line. So the ''black holes'' that we can observe right now are merely remnent of disturbed light and time and not the actual ''thing''. That theory fit with common acknowledge physics. For the specifics of it i don't know though.
-
I read about that.. How they think blackholes revert into white holes spewing everything out.. But because of gravity we cant observe it or some complex hawking radiation going on.. Either way i find them fascinating
-
black holes not existing?
-
It's just a theory. We can't exactly prove them real, nor wrong. It's been awhile since Iv'e heard anything new about it, so sorry if I'm wrong.
-
Edited by Godchild: 9/3/2014 11:24:00 AMWell Stephen Hawking had a new theory to do with Black Holes but it was not about them not existing. He was talking about things that happen at the event horizon, the very edge of a black hole. edit: That is the latest thing I can think of.
-
Oh they exist alright what I'm saying is our current laws of physics actually forbid there existence.. Which has got scientists trying to solve this loop hole.. Have to remember we know literally nothing about the universe... A blackhole isn't even how most people imagine it Its essentially an inverted three dimensional sphere in space... As in its a hole.. That is a sphere... Its very existence breaks physics and time..
-
Your first post was very vague by what you meant by them not existing was all.
-
I never actually said black holes don't exist.. I said our understanding of them means they shouldn't. ... Shouldn't and don't are vastly different.
-
Edited by Godchild: 9/3/2014 12:17:32 PMYes I saw that. I just wanted to know what you meant when you said that they should not exist. It made a auto correct mistake by removing should not. It was my mistake for not noticing it did that.
-
Ahh no worries then ;3
-
Your second comment actually answered my question very well. Even with my mistake.