Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: White Holes the other end of a black hole?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    224

    White Holes the other end of a black hole?

    From my basic understanding of White Holes they are said to be the other end of a black hole right? A black hole sucks matter in and spews it out into another universe via a wormhole. I believe that idea was thought up by Schwarzschild? And the wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge?

    If a black hole is emptying its matter into another universe wouldn't it quickly disappear unless it was constantly being fed large amounts of matter? And how could the event horizon grow and make SMBH's if this matter was being ejected constantly?

    Or does any of this even matter? I have seen a few other articles that say white holes can't exist anyway because they violate the second law of thermodynamics.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Where did you get this... Its not supported be any observation or known facts.

    The Black Hole is just the silly name that has been given to a super massive star that has collapsed into a area of massive density. Mater as we know it does not survive in this environment. The gravity force so strong that emitted light can not escape. Any talk of worm holes and bridges is science fiction.
    The term White Hole might be a better name for the BB. It being the reverse of a super massive black hole... At this point we have no knowledge of such a thing...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
    From my basic understanding of White Holes they are said to be the other end of a black hole right? A black hole sucks matter in and spews it out into another universe via a wormhole. I believe that idea was thought up by Schwarzschild? And the wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge?

    If a black hole is emptying its matter into another universe wouldn't it quickly disappear unless it was constantly being fed large amounts of matter? And how could the event horizon grow and make SMBH's if this matter was being ejected constantly?

    Or does any of this even matter? I have seen a few other articles that say white holes can't exist anyway because they violate the second law of thermodynamics.
    I believe white hole is just a term for time reversing a black hole in purely theoretical terms. Its like a thought experiment.

    Though i do think there is a strange paralell between the singularity that casued the BB and the singularity in a black hole.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    White holes were fashionable a while back. I don´t hear much about them nowadays...

    They used to be an attempt to keep the conservation of energy. They were a pre-Hawking Radiation fad.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetlack View Post
    Though i do think there is a strange paralell between the singularity that casued the BB and the singularity in a black hole.
    They are the same thing.


    If spacetime is curved, then it probably is a sphere. How can 3D space be a sphere? Because in 4D it's the surface of an expanding hypersphere, or a Glome.


    Black holes put a sink into this glome that goes all the way to the singularity at the center of the expansion of the universe. In other words, where the big bang happened.

    And since physics of space and time break down inside the event horizon, it might even be safe to say that it is moment of the big bang, since time doesn't exist down there.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius
    Black holes put a sink into this glome that goes all the way to the singularity at the center of the expansion of the universe. In other words, where the big bang happened.

    And since physics of space and time break down inside the event horizon, it might even be safe to say that it is moment of the big bang, since time doesn't exist down there.
    Is this part of mainstream science, or your own conjecture?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CodeSlinger View Post
    Is this part of mainstream science, or your own conjecture?
    As far as I'm aware, it's not my own conjecture. Is it conjecture?


    I just got finished reading Rucker. Maybe he's regarded as a hack?


    I also just got finished reading Brief History of Time. Hawking is certainly no hack. I pretty much put two and two together, but I lack the convinience of good University faculty to guide me, so I came here.

    Am I wrong? If so, why? And what is the better explanation?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,635
    if all the matter that goes into a black hole gets spewed out in the white hole somewhere else, then how does a black hole gain mass? how do we get the super massive black holes that are in the center of galaxies?
    and why don't we see any white holes anywhere? i would think they'd be a bright as a black hole is dark- which is to say, they'd be the brightest things out there and we would have developed mathematical theories to explain those super bright objects scattered throughout the cosmos.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius View Post
    They are the same thing.


    If spacetime is curved, then it probably is a sphere. How can 3D space be a sphere? Because in 4D it's the surface of an expanding hypersphere, or a Glome.


    Black holes put a sink into this glome that goes all the way to the singularity at the center of the expansion of the universe. In other words, where the big bang happened.

    And since physics of space and time break down inside the event horizon, it might even be safe to say that it is moment of the big bang, since time doesn't exist down there.
    Whooaaa -- slow down, pardner. All this kind of stuff is fun, but you're letting your imagination run away with you. It's easy to do when you get excited.

    DeSitter space, an "expanding universe" metric which is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) with positive cosmological constant but zero source terms, a "lambdavacuum" can indeed be seen as an expanding "glome" in a (1, 4) higher dimensional embedding space. The (n, m) notation means a Minkowski space with n time-like dimensions and m space-like ones.

    The hyperradius is accelerating hyperbolically, and the "surface" is described by this hyperbolic equation:

    r^2 - (ct)^2 = k^2 = (c^2/a)^2, where a is the constant "proper acceleration" of a comover riding that radius. In (1, 4) we have the relation L/3 = 1/k^2 = (a/c^2)^2.

    That hypersurface gives us a (1, 3) expanding universe space-time. It's very slick and cute.

    However, it's just that, a toy mathematical model. In the general case, not every curved (1, 3) space-time can be embedded in a (1, 4) higher space-time. Indeed, many cannot. Some require more dimensions, *even more time-like dimensions* to successfully embed. Now, the notion of a higher space with more than one time dimension is just something I can't fathom.

    While you can sucessfully embed the radial (1, 1) space-time of Schwarszchild in a (1, 2) space, you cannot do that for the full (1, 3) Schwarschild space-time. You need more dimensions. Why that is so, I don't know, but that's the way it is.

    So, the notion of a black hole sitting in deSitter space, the Schwarzschild-deSitter space-time (SdS) cannot be embedded in a (1, 4) space-time at all.

    Now, our universe is not dS space. It's a good approximation for most purposes out to a couple GLY or so, and it will asympotically approach
    de Sitter (if lamdba is truly a constant, and some other oddity like the Big Rip doesn't happen), but it's not. It's the LCDM model, FLRW with lamdba added.

    LCDM space-time is not static unfortunately and no cute little static metrics can be found, and I'm almost certain that no (1, 4) embedding space exists for it. If there is none for SdS, then I don't see how there could be for LCDM.

    So the idea of a black hole being some sort of little sink in an expanding hypershpere just doesn't work. The idea is sort of seductive -- it seems like it might look that way, but it doesn't.

    -Richard

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
    From my basic understanding of White Holes they are said to be the other end of a black hole right? A black hole sucks matter in and spews it out into another universe via a wormhole. I believe that idea was thought up by Schwarzschild?
    The confusion comes from the (metaphorical in origin) name "black hole". It's not a hole, it's a superdense mass. In other languages, this question wouldn't even come up; in Russian, for instance, the term is "Frozen Star".

    The concept of an Einstain/Rosen bridge (or E/R/Podolski bridge, as some prefer) is still around as a component of wormhole theory.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    So the idea of a black hole being some sort of little sink in an expanding hypershpere just doesn't work. The idea is sort of seductive -- it seems like it might look that way, but it doesn't.

    -Richard
    Okay, fair enough. That's what science is, after all.


    However, what I posted makes perfect sense to me, and I'm afraid I didn't understand your post.

    I'm of course willing to change my outlook, but could you please break it down simpler for me? Thanks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The confusion comes from the (metaphorical in origin) name "black hole". It's not a hole, it's a superdense mass. In other languages, this question wouldn't even come up; in Russian, for instance, the term is "Frozen Star".

    The concept of an Einstain/Rosen bridge (or E/R/Podolski bridge, as some prefer) is still around as a component of wormhole theory.
    Are you saying Schwarzschild was confused by the words "Black Hole"? I find that highly unlikely.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
    Are you saying Schwarzschild was confused by the words "Black Hole"? I find that highly unlikely.
    Uh, no, I'm saying I think the OP was.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
    Are you saying Schwarzschild was confused by the words "Black Hole"? I find that highly unlikely.
    The very statement ” White Holes they are said to be the other end of a black hole” shows confusion over the name. I think there would be a great deal less misunderstanding, and therefore less controversy, if they were called hyperdensities (my term) instead.

    My theory on wormholes is that they are made by worms eating their way through a piece of fruit like an apple. I have seen the holes in the apples, and I have seen the worms in the holes, but I have never actually seen a worm making a wormhole, so it is just a theory.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Uh, no, I'm saying I think the OP was.

    The OP, being me, was merely quoting a theory made up by someone else (i.e. Schwarzschild). It was not opinon, it was fact.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    Where did you get this... Its not supported be any observation or known facts.

    The Black Hole is just the silly name that has been given to a super massive star that has collapsed into a area of massive density. Mater as we know it does not survive in this environment. The gravity force so strong that emitted light can not escape. Any talk of worm holes and bridges is science fiction.
    The term White Hole might be a better name for the BB. It being the reverse of a super massive black hole... At this point we have no knowledge of such a thing...

    Let me try and make this as clear as I can...
    A worm hole; Most often found on a lawn-ed area or garden environments.
    Large earth worms to the small flat ones are found across the globe in many forms. Commonly found in composting garden or forest mater. They make holes in the soil. hence 'worm hole'.
    And yes pick up an apple and you might find a worm hole....
    As for astronomy.... No proof of such a thing at all. Hypothetical, fiction, you decide.
    Black hole; A very dark and often foreboding hole in the ground. Pot howler's refer to these as unlit caves. and then a massive area of stupendous gravity force as you know...

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It's not a hole, it's a superdense mass.
    Not just superdense, but infinitely dense if you use a model that includes a singularity.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon Star View Post
    Not just superdense, but infinitely dense if you use a model that includes a singularity.
    Unlikely. Infinitely dense insinuates a density that has collapsed until it essentially no longer exists. That is because as something becomes more dense, it gets smaller. Therefore infinite density also infers infinite reduction in size. Infinity is a really unforgivable limit. Maximum density might be appropriate. Hyperdensities probably have a finite physical size.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by MentalAvenger View Post
    Unlikely. Infinitely dense insinuates a density that has collapsed until it essentially no longer exists. That is because as something becomes more dense, it gets smaller. Therefore infinite density also infers infinite reduction in size. Infinity is a really unforgivable limit. Maximum density might be appropriate. Hyperdensities probably have a finite physical size.
    If you look at the definition of singularity, it's described as infinitely dense, infinitely small mass.

    Most models adapt a singularity.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon Star View Post
    If you look at the definition of singularity, it's described as infinitely dense, infinitely small mass.
    I know. And I think the definition is semantically incorrect.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Not that I would know this or that what I think caries any more weight than any other's BUT... Yes the use of the word infinite is troublesome and confusing. The density found at the core of a super massive black hole or singularity is very very dense. acceptable. To use the word infinite suggests something as fact we do not know. Its splitting hairs to argue this but I would think there is always more. If for example a whole Galaxy mass was compressed into this singularity could it not get bigger and yet more powerful and have even greater gravity force. Yes of course it could.
    The next line is not mine; but I feel this is the right time and place for it.
    Some things we will never know. This might be one of em.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius View Post
    Okay, fair enough. That's what science is, after all.
    Actually, not science, but mathematics. Well, if you consider math to be a science, then it is. But the point is, these embedding space pictures, are not physics. Physics relates curvature of space-time to mass-energy (and perhaps a cosmological constant/dark energy, whatever that is, maybe just geometry, may be physics.....).

    What I mean by that is General Relativity does not *need* embedding spaces. GR is based on the math of differential geometry which is all about describing curvature instrinsically -- no need to worry about what it curves into, just that curves.

    And this is about curvature of space-time. The mixture of the two. Thinking in terms of higher dimensional spaces doesn't give you the full picture. Time behaves differently and the mixture of the two is different. That's very important to appreciate.


    However, what I posted makes perfect sense to me, and I'm afraid I didn't understand your post.

    I'm of course willing to change my outlook, but could you please break it down simpler for me? Thanks.
    Well, as I understood what you posted, you speculated that our universe was the curved surface volume of a hypersphere, and that black holes were sort of little "sinks" that pulled that surface back to the center.

    What you were doing there was invoking on of the higher dimensional embedding spaces. And my post was that just doesn't work mathematically/geometrically.

    Remember it is space-*time*, not just space. And like I said above, that time part sort of complicates things greatly.

    The other part was that, in a special case, something called deSitter space-time, it is possible to view a 3D, 1 time dimension space-time in terms of a curved hypersurface in a larger flat space-time with 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. But because of the way space and time mix, that surface is not static, but has to be doing something with time.

    And, the last point was that while you can do that in some cases, see a curved 3D, 1T space as embedded in a higher 4D, 1T space, you can't do that in the general case.

    Our current LCDM model space-time can't be done that way (it will get close, but no cigar). And even Schwarszschild, with all 3 spatial dimensions can't be don't that way either. You need more higher dimensions. And in some cases, again because of that mixing of space and time, you need more than 1 higher time dimension, which is just very weird indeed.

    -Richard

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    9,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
    The OP, being me, was merely quoting a theory made up by someone else (i.e. Schwarzschild). It was not opinon, it was fact.
    Schwarzschild died fifty years before the expression "black hole" was coined by Wheeler, so he was indeed unlikely to have been confused by it.
    But he also did not suggest that there was a white hole on the "opposite end" of a black hole: his metric just comes to a singularity at the centre of the black hole.

    White holes were time-reversed versions of Schwarzschild's equations, which enjoyed a brief vogue but no observational evidence.

    A "wormhole" solution is possible in GR, with a black hole at one end and a white hole at the other, but it is unstable and requires matter with unheard-of properties to hold it open.

    Grant Hutchison

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2,532
    [QUOTE=Noclevername;1139482]. In other languages, this question wouldn't even come up; in Russian, for instance, the term is "Frozen Star". [QUOTE]

    It's not semantic exactitude, clever linguistics or a logical and scientific philosophy that prevent the Russians using a literal translation of 'black hole' - черная дыра - for this concept. In fact 'черная дыра' has an entirely different and scatalogical meaning in Russian slang, that would not be used in polite company. I won't offer an English equivalent, but as this discussion has been about White Holes, as the point at which everything that goes into the Black Hole comes out again .....................

    John

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    Actually, not science, but mathematics. Well, if you consider math to be a science, then it is. But the point is, these embedding space pictures, are not physics. Physics relates curvature of space-time to mass-energy (and perhaps a cosmological constant/dark energy, whatever that is, maybe just geometry, may be physics.....).

    What I mean by that is General Relativity does not *need* embedding spaces. GR is based on the math of differential geometry which is all about describing curvature instrinsically -- no need to worry about what it curves into, just that curves.

    And this is about curvature of space-time. The mixture of the two. Thinking in terms of higher dimensional spaces doesn't give you the full picture. Time behaves differently and the mixture of the two is different. That's very important to appreciate.




    Well, as I understood what you posted, you speculated that our universe was the curved surface volume of a hypersphere, and that black holes were sort of little "sinks" that pulled that surface back to the center.

    What you were doing there was invoking on of the higher dimensional embedding spaces. And my post was that just doesn't work mathematically/geometrically.

    Remember it is space-*time*, not just space. And like I said above, that time part sort of complicates things greatly.

    The other part was that, in a special case, something called deSitter space-time, it is possible to view a 3D, 1 time dimension space-time in terms of a curved hypersurface in a larger flat space-time with 4 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. But because of the way space and time mix, that surface is not static, but has to be doing something with time.

    And, the last point was that while you can do that in some cases, see a curved 3D, 1T space as embedded in a higher 4D, 1T space, you can't do that in the general case.

    Our current LCDM model space-time can't be done that way (it will get close, but no cigar). And even Schwarszschild, with all 3 spatial dimensions can't be don't that way either. You need more higher dimensions. And in some cases, again because of that mixing of space and time, you need more than 1 higher time dimension, which is just very weird indeed.

    -Richard
    Thanks. I'm getting it a little better now, I think.

    But what I can't wrap my head around is the part I bolded above. How can it curve, but not curve into something? Isn't a curve just relative to the "straight" parts around it?

    It's this differential geometry you mentioned. If I understood how that works, perhaps then I could see the argument that my post from earlier doesn't hold water.

  26. 2007-Dec-29, 02:49 AM
    Reason
    edit does not work

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,397
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius View Post
    But what I can't wrap my head around is the part I bolded above. How can it curve, but not curve into something? Isn't a curve just relative to the "straight" parts around it?

    It's this differential geometry you mentioned. If I understood how that works, perhaps then I could see the argument that my post from earlier doesn't hold water.
    ”Curved” in the sense that is being used here does not mean geometrically curved. One of the faults I find with the “rubber sheet” example is that it is an inadequate attempt to explain 3D space in a 2D example. Similarly, the term “curved” as used here, does not have an analogy in 3D space. I hope this helps.

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius View Post
    Thanks. I'm getting it a little better now, I think.

    But what I can't wrap my head around is the part I bolded above. How can it curve, but not curve into something? Isn't a curve just relative to the "straight" parts around it?

    It's this differential geometry you mentioned. If I understood how that works, perhaps then I could see the argument that my post from earlier doesn't hold water.

    Understanding full blown differential geometry is not something one does overnight. If you've got a good background in linear algebra and vector calculus, and differential equations and some other stuff I can't think of right now , you'll be good to go. If not, you need to learn the prerequisites or it will be complete greek.

    This is what is called intrinsic curvature. It's about describing a curved space without resorting to any higher spaces. Indeed in this picture, a flat space is just one with zero curvature.

    But using the embedding picture can help you get started at seeing how it works. Then you take the step of realizing you don't need the higher space and all you need is a certain description of "the curvature".

    Consider the 2D surface of a sphere in 3D dimensions, or say some infinite surface, a hyperbolic one or anything you can imagine, say some sinusoidal waving thing that extends to infinity.

    Looking at it that way lets you see how various mathematical objects work. But these curved 2D surfaces have invariant properties that are indepedent of the higher space. You don't need it.

    The notion of curvature is defined as how "straight" lines deviate from straight. IOW, if we have two parallel lines in a local neigborhood, do they converge or diverge if extended globally. In flat space, parallel lines never interesect. If the curvature is positive, such as on the sphere, those lines will converge. If the curvature is negative, those lines will diverge, get farther apart with length.

    Now, the curvature at point is describing, in a differential sense, how all possible parallel lines through a point are deviating from parallel with respect to each other. Mathematically, that requires a tensor in the general case. In a plane, with simple curves contained there, the curvature can be described by a single scalar number. But in the general case of arbitrary dimensions, it takes a tensor. Note above, I spoke of positive and negative curvature. In simple cases, that tensor can "collapse" into something that can be spoken of as a scalar, but not always.

    Use the embedding space as a launching point in these simpler cases, you can see how this curvature thing can be defined in terms of things that work in the familiar flat Euclidean ways you are familiar with.

    Then you realize you don't need the higher embedding space -- that curvature tensor thing can tell you all you need to know in terms of coordinates defined on the curved space itself. Know that, and you know the space without resort to a higher embedding space.

    Now, the Einstein FIeld Equations, the governing equations of General Relativity relate the curvature of space-time to the mass-energy-momentum content of that space-time.

    -Richard

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon Star View Post
    If you look at the definition of singularity, it's described as infinitely dense, infinitely small mass.

    Most models adapt a singularity.
    Singularity is a mathematical construct. It defines only the limits of our ability to describe the reality, not the reality itself.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  30. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    Understanding full blown differential geometry is not something one does overnight. If you've got a good background in linear algebra and vector calculus, and differential equations and some other stuff I can't think of right now , you'll be good to go. If not, you need to learn the prerequisites or it will be complete greek.

    This is what is called intrinsic curvature. It's about describing a curved space without resorting to any higher spaces. Indeed in this picture, a flat space is just one with zero curvature.

    But using the embedding picture can help you get started at seeing how it works. Then you take the step of realizing you don't need the higher space and all you need is a certain description of "the curvature".

    Consider the 2D surface of a sphere in 3D dimensions, or say some infinite surface, a hyperbolic one or anything you can imagine, say some sinusoidal waving thing that extends to infinity.

    Looking at it that way lets you see how various mathematical objects work. But these curved 2D surfaces have invariant properties that are indepedent of the higher space. You don't need it.

    The notion of curvature is defined as how "straight" lines deviate from straight. IOW, if we have two parallel lines in a local neigborhood, do they converge or diverge if extended globally. In flat space, parallel lines never interesect. If the curvature is positive, such as on the sphere, those lines will converge. If the curvature is negative, those lines will diverge, get farther apart with length.

    Now, the curvature at point is describing, in a differential sense, how all possible parallel lines through a point are deviating from parallel with respect to each other. Mathematically, that requires a tensor in the general case. In a plane, with simple curves contained there, the curvature can be described by a single scalar number. But in the general case of arbitrary dimensions, it takes a tensor. Note above, I spoke of positive and negative curvature. In simple cases, that tensor can "collapse" into something that can be spoken of as a scalar, but not always.

    Use the embedding space as a launching point in these simpler cases, you can see how this curvature thing can be defined in terms of things that work in the familiar flat Euclidean ways you are familiar with.

    Then you realize you don't need the higher embedding space -- that curvature tensor thing can tell you all you need to know in terms of coordinates defined on the curved space itself. Know that, and you know the space without resort to a higher embedding space.

    Now, the Einstein FIeld Equations, the governing equations of General Relativity relate the curvature of space-time to the mass-energy-momentum content of that space-time.

    -Richard
    Well, I'm still kind of lost, but thank you. I do get, however, that it is mathematically possible to have "curved space" without a higher dimension to curve through.

    So then I'm wondering, within the framework of this model of the universe, are my questions in this topic still mathematically possible?

    http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...-wormhole.html

    Because the reason I was so into the 4th dimension is because it works perfectly for the story idea I'm playing with, and now I kind of feel like 4D is the Bible, I'm a 17th century priest or academian, and you're Galileo.


  31. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatarius View Post
    Because the reason I was so into the 4th dimension is because it works perfectly for the story idea I'm playing with, and now I kind of feel like 4D is the Bible, I'm a 17th century priest or academian, and you're Galileo.
    If it's for a story, you can use whatever rules you like. You're creating your own Universe, after all.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

Similar Threads

  1. Whats the difference between a Black Hole and a White Hole?
    By emmylou in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-07, 02:51 PM
  2. White Holes Orbiting Black Holes?
    By Airtime in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-21, 09:40 AM
  3. My theory: Black holes, white holes,
    By scooley01 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2004-Sep-15, 04:00 PM
  4. Black/white Holes
    By StarLab in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Apr-30, 04:42 PM
  5. Black Holes, White Holes and Brane Theory?
    By semi-sentient in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-18, 12:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •