AWKWARD ZOMBIE

To add some math to that for those interestednoone:

The formula for the gravitational pull of a cosmic object on a much smaller object is F=-G*m/(R+h)^(2).
The formula to calculate mass from density is m=d*V.
F= force, G=gravitational constant, m=mass, R=cosmic object radius, h=small object height(measured from cosmic's surface), d=density and V= volume.

When forming a black hole 2 things happen: cosmic's mass is reduced and cosmic's radius is reduced. The radius reduction is stronger than the mass reduction, so density increases.

Let's look at 2 situations and compare a star with it's corresponding black hole:
1. Small object is at height common in astronomic terms, so very high.
2. Small object rests at surface of cosmic.

1. The height of the object is much larger than the radius of the cosmic, so the radius isn't a deciding factor to determine pull. Thus, the star will exercise a stronger gravitational pull than the black hole, since it's mass is larger.
2. The height of the object isn't a deciding factor any more, so the radius becomes a deciding factor. Since we stated that the mass reduction is smaller than the the radius reduction, the black hole now has the greater gravitational pull, since the radius is inversely proportional to the pull. It should be noted that the radius is squared, so it can have a relatively large impact on the gravitational pull.

tl;dr math explains things to death.

Now for something more interesting: black "hole" probably isn't a really correct term, since it's not a hole that things disappear into, but a ball that grows larger and less dense as it sucks things in. It might eventually even lose it's ability to act as a black hole. Of course, noone's been able to experiment on black holes yet, so you're free to keep thinking they're portals to other worlds, if you feel so inclined.

EDIT: Actually, black holes are complexer than that, apparently there are theories about a point of infinite density in the middle of the black hole, which would implicate that a black hole is capable of absorbing matter indefinetely. In short, don't take my word on any of this, this is hardly my field of expertise.

I've always thought of them as superdense balls of neutron-biased atoms; That is, a mass composed primarily of atomic nuclei/cores which have shed their electron 'shells' due to atomic stress.

Having lost their electron shells the atoms have nothing to keep their atomic nuclei/cores separated; This is how a 'black hole' can be so much smaller than the star it originated from, yet retain similar mass/gravitational properties.

It helps if you have an understanding of basic atomic theory/mass properties for this.


This kind of thing is so much easier to explain with diagrams.

Oh, that's neat, I didn't know that(the atoms shedding their electrons). That would allow MUCH higher density yeah, the nucleus is only a small speck in the emptiness contained in the electron shells. How can the protons in the core stay together though? At smaller distances, Elektromagnetic forces win over Gravitational ones. I'm going to look this up later, unless you can provide some explanation?

EDIT: Lookie I found something neat. I'm just gonna paste the explanation that came with it and link to the page, because I know nothing about this field.

Simulation of gravitational lensing by a black hole, which distorts the image of a galaxy in the background
EDIT2: For some reason, I'm getting paranoid that I sound sarcastic in this post. For the record, I'm not.

It's just something I've gathered from watching a few science programs over the years, tied in with some basic understanding of atomic physics. It'd be better for your own sake to look it up (and probably prove me wrong) before you take my word for it.

Knowing that neutrons and protons have mass - and electrons have none, and also that electrons are the things that keep atomic nuclei separated; it all just kinda fell into place for me at some point - I honestly can't recall how much of this I came up with myself or how much of it came from the science shows (it's been a while since I've watched a science program on TV).


It's a very basic theory based on my understanding that:

1. Atoms are composed of neutrons and protons (which have mass) and electrons (which do not)

2. Electrons are the things that keep the nuclei (protons and neutrons) of atoms apart.

3. Stars send out light/heat radiation (which is basically escaped electrons).

4. The atoms within a star have a limited number of electrons to send out through radiation.

5. When the atoms within a star run out of electrons through radiation - there is nothing to keep the nuclei of the atoms within a star apart, hence it collapses into itself to form what is essentially one gigantic atomic nucleus of protons and neutrons (a black hole).

Recalling that it is the protons and neutrons within an atom that give it mass, that is how a black hole can retain the mass of its star form, yet be so much smaller in size.


This is essentially a facebattle* understanding of what a black hole is in my head; How accurate it is I can't be sure.

*Keep it simple stupid.


I also have theories about how a 'black hole' reverts to a star, but again, I can't recall how much of that is my own amateur piecemeal science at work.

Well, I'm just going to go ahead and complicate things up for you. Also, I've added sort of a disclaimer to my last long post in this thread, in case anyone missed it.



Approximately right, however electrons do have a small mass, namely 9.10938215*10^(-31) kg(rounded). This is very important for a complete understanding of atoms.



True, but it's important to note how they keep nuclei apart. Electrons are all negatively charged and negative charges repel each other. Thus, when an atom tries to near another atom, their electronic shells repel each other. Atoms have electronic shells because this is normally the most stable configuration (because every particle tries to achieve as little potential energy as possible. This requires an understanding of conservation of Energy and such).



Partially true, radiation can consist of electrons(this is called beta-radiation(with the Greek letter the forum doesn't support)) or out of other particles(alpha- and gamma-radiation). Light is a complicated thing, having both a matter and a wave aspect and consists of photons

.

True, I guess, but most radiation from stars is created from combining protons or atoms to from new elements, giving of the excess energy as radiation(gamma). A star dies when it has combined all of it's matter into the highest ranked element it can create through normal solar nuclear fusion, Fe(iron). I felt I should add this because this statement seemed to hint at some misunderstanding on your part.



Yeah, I guess the previous pretty much sums up my objections to this. Protons won't all stick together nicely, since they have the same charge and repel each other. Also, the Black hole article on wiki doesn't seem to make mention of atoms shedding their electrons and all sitting together with the same charge, which would be an extra ordinary event worthy of notice, so I'm afraid I think your theory is false.


I feel like I should add I'm almost 100% certain about most things in these post, since it's what I learned throughout my education. I might have messed up some details though, like forgetting to mention there are 2 kind of beta-radiation(electrons being beta minus).

Also, this was still an over simplified explanation, but you could talk about this stuff for years.




Feel free to share, I love toying in my head with these ideas.

EDIT: Fixed an image in a previous post, check it out, it's p cool.

Yeah, my understanding of the subtle forces at work within atoms is not as well developed as yours (I'm a student of the arts more than sciences - and even then biology was more my strong point).

That's generally how I understand black holes though (which I hope is at least somewhat better than thinking they're actually a portal of some description).


On the black holes reverting back into stars: I'm personally not up to date with the current theory of the universe (whether the big bang theory has been thrown out yet) but I generally operate on the theory that the universe is infinite, and that stars are not finite, but rather cyclical things.

That is, a star goes through a radiative phase (sun), exhausts its fuel supply (collapse), enters an absorption phase (black hole), then entering an explosive rebirth phase once enough matter/light has been captured (supernova), forming a dust cloud (nebula), which eventually re-coalesces back into a sun - starting the process over again.

To me, this makes allowances for the universe being infinite (albeit on a very simple level) - in that stars can continue to go through this cycle indefinitely.


Of course this is again is all very amateur science on my part, but it is generally how I try to make sense of things based on my limited understanding of physics.

That is actually a pretty interesting idea. Obvious limitations are of course the accelerated expansion of the universe, but I'll certainly think this one over for a bit. I'm going out now though, I'll be back tomorrow.

I might have the order mixed up there, it could be more like this:

sun + planets
v
supernova
v
black hole + nebula
v
coalescence
v
sun + planets


I'm pretty rusty on all this tbh.

Except stars don't go supernova often, thus leading scientists to thinking that the universe will be one day one big series of black holes.

I've had my crackpot theories pulled apart by people who actually know about sophisticated physics in the past.

I try to revise my theories based on what they say but often they just get angry because I question the accuracy of the BBT without actually knowing a great deal about physics (one such guy who was a moderator on another forum gave me the custom title of 'Black Hole Pastafarian' - which I was quite proud of - lol).

I don't trust scientists as a rule. You can talk to twenty different scientists and get twenty different ideas on the exact same topic. And each one of them will think you're an idiot if you don't blindly believe what they do.

"BUT THAT'S WHAT THE DATA SAYS!"

I trust scientists on matters they can actually experiment on, like say plants. Not things none of them have ever touched and never will.

Gravity.

They can do experiments with gravity, plus they can identify its force and measure it along with noting that gravitational pull increases with mass. They cannot do experiments with say quantum physics.