Is the accelleration of the gravitational pull of the black hole different from one black hole to another?
960972
The denser the black hole, the larger it's event horizon would be.\n\nApplying the Einstein Field Equations to collapsing stars, German astrophysicist Kurt Schwarzschild deduced the critical radius for a given mass at which matter would collapse into an infinitely dense state known as a singularity. For a black hole whose mass equals 10 suns, this radius is about 30 kilometers or 19 miles, which translates into a critical circumference of 189 kilometers or 118 miles.
222429
Black holes will NOT swallow the entire universe.\n\nIf one black hole swallows another, then there will be a single black hole with combined masses of the original two.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
274083
No.  A black hole is an immensely dense object, like taking all the matter in our solar system plus more, and condensing it to the size of a pea or so.  The moment we could "create" one, the entire earth would be "sucked into" it.
1035592
You're question is worded strangely.\n\nModern physics suggest that time does not, as we commonly percieve it to, progress steadily forward from one moment to another. The reason is that there is no plausable mechanism to show how one "moment" is suddenly lit up and set aside as being "now". Furthermore, special relativity shows us that two different observers who are moving relative to one another would disagree about what events constitute a "now". \n\nSo the idea of stopping something that isn't moving in the first place is rather presumptuous.\n\nHowever, throwing caution to the wind, there is every reson to believe that time stops for a weightless particle moving at the speed of light, and that time stops within the event horizon of a black hole. For whatever those observations are worth... there they are.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nEdit - S_k_Latif, please either more thoroughly research and understand the topics you reply to, or do not reply to them at all. There is no good reason to spread faulty or innacurate information. What you just said makes exactly zero sense. Just being honset.
980384
Hi. Yes, every particle does it to a minuscule amount. When you get a lot of particles packed VERY close together the effect becomes not only noticeable, but dangerous. That WHAT a black hole is and WHY it is.
557703
Black holes are huge concentrations of mass in a very small area.  So small that it is too small to contain conventional matter as we understand it.  There is a perimeter around a black hole known as the event horizon.  Beyond this point, nothing, not even light can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole.  If you were to be able to stand on the event horizon and have telescopic vision like Superman, looking tangent to the event horizon, you would see the back of your head.
7304
You are right about it being related to material falling into the black hole.  Material just doesn't fall in, it collects around it and forms an accretion disc.  The friction of the matter spinning around creates heat and light.\n\nThe disc also creates a jet that escapes the grasp the black hole at high speed, thought to be due to the magnetic field of the spinning disc.\n\nThere is also Hawking Radiation that comes from quantum mechanics.  Virtual particles that "pop" into existence near the black hole, one falls in and the other escapes, and so its no longer virtual.  And this causes the black hole to radiate away its mass.
403857
yes, black holes really exit.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
918848
According to general relativity, the matter inside a black hole collapses to a single point: a "singularity".  At this point, the mass density (ρ = m/V) is undefined (because the volume of a single point is zero). \nWe have a lot to learn about extreme cases such as this.
205927
a black hole will crush any thing, even the smallest thing you can think of. a black hole will suck up any light and matter, so the shuttle will get chrushed and spit out into something samller then nanoscopic out the other end. the reason the milky way is spining is because there is a black hole.
784181
"...Does the black hole continue to increase in mass and increase the gravitational affect?..."\nWe haven't been studying black holes long enough yet to determine if their mass does increase from all the material being drawn in. Theoretically it would.\n\n"...does all that stuff get shot out in another direction?..."\nExactly what happens to material that disappears beyond the event horizon of black holes isn't known for sure because there's no way science can observe what goes on there. A few speculations persist about so-called  'white holes,' the drain of black holes where everything re-appears in another universe or dimension.\n\n"...Do black holes ever die? And if so, what happens to them?..."\nAgain, science doesn't know because the observational evidence just isn't there. However, Stephen Hawking has developed a workable theory showing that over great lengths of time black holes can actually radiate some of their energy and in time would evaporate.
307889
Einstein's field equation needs to be applied to certain situations, particular solutions yeaild most of the inetesting objects in gravitation.  A particular solution leads to Black Holes, and others describe other objects.\n\nBy saying this one is pointing out that the results presented with this theory are consistant with the General Theory of Reletivity.
1165947
Eric Jaffe-Magnetic Thrust: Fields force matter into black holes\n\nLike a child scared to dive into a pool, cosmic matter needs one last push to plunge into a black hole. New observations confirm that magnetic fields provide this final galactic shove. \n\n The observations come from a system in the Milky Way called GRO J1655-40, which consists of a black hole and a normal star. Gas from the star is pulled toward the black hole, where it forms what's called an accretion disk. Angular momentum—the same property that keeps Earth from diving into the sun—keeps the disk revolving around the black hole instead of falling into it. \n\nUnless something knocked them off course, the gases in the disk would continue to circle the black hole forever. "To get matter in toward the black hole, we have to change the orbits in the disk," says study leader Jon Miller of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Until now, scientists weren't sure whether magnetic fields, radiation pressure, or heat alter the orbit and trigger that fall. \n\nUsing NASA's Chandra satellite observatory, Miller's team collected data on X rays emitted from the J1655 system. They found that the X rays came from a wind blowing from the disk, so some force must propel the wind past the black hole's gravitational pull. After simulating the wind on a computer, the researchers conclude that only magnetic fields could create such a force, they report in the June 22 Nature. \n\nThe team had ruled out a wind fueled by heat from the core of the disk or by pressure from radiation blasting out of the disk. A heat-driven wind would have been hotter than the one that the researchers observed, and radiation pressure is too weak to drive that wind. \n\n"Magnetic pressure really was the only viable means remaining," Miller says. \n\nSuch pressure could upset the gas disk's orbit in two ways. The magnetic fields could push the wind outward like a spring, or the force of the spinning disk could fling the wind away from the disk's center. Either disruption of the disk's orbit would cause some matter to spiral downward. \n\nMiller's team appears to prefer the first scenario, says Roger Blandford of Stanford University. Blandford prefers the second, which he describes as an organized magnetic slingshot. "I suspect there are different answers in different types of systems," he says. "But on the face of it, this looks like a big advance observationally." \n\nThough most astrophysicists expected magnetic fields to play a role in black holes, the finding is "very important evidence that what we thought before makes sense," says Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "It's the first time there's clear evidence for wind coming off an accretion disk." \n\nThe finding could help astrophysicists understand the complex give-and-take between galaxies and black holes,
359590
The short answer is that whenever we take a good hard look at any given galaxy, we find good evidence that there is, or could be, a black hole at it's core.\n\nThe long answer is:\nIt is not so much a theory as something being increasingly noticed. Because black holes are the latest and coolest thing in astronomy (just look how many questions about them appear here!), everyone is always looking for them. They are not so easy to find because, well, they are black. You can't see one directly. One way to tell if there is a black hole there is by the effects of it's gravity on nearby matter. So far, the biggest effect observed on nearby matter has been high energy radiation caused by the rapid acceleration of that matter as it falls into the black hole. Some galaxies show that in their core, indicating a massive black hole there.\nAnother effect is that stars could orbit the black hole, just like the Earth orbits our Sun. We have known for a long time that all stars in a galaxy are orbiting around the center of that galaxy. IN the past it was assumed that there were enough regular stars and dust and gas in the center of the galaxy to make a mass big enough to orbit around. But recently observations with more powerful telescopes of stars closer and closer to the center of our Milky Way galaxy have shown stars VERY close to the center of the galaxy orbiting VERY fast. In that case it is easy to calculate the mass of whatever it is that they are orbiting, just like we can calculate the mass of the Sun by knowing how fast the Earth orbits it. Those calculations show the mass is millions of times more than the sun. Now we know all that mass has to be in an area smaller than the orbits of those stars, and the size of those orbits is measured as being quite small, so we know the volume far too small to be a big star cluster or other ordinary concentration of mass. The only known way to get so much mass in such a small volume is a black hole.\n\nI recall many years ago, when computers were just becoming powerful enough to do big simulations, that someone tried to simulate a globular star cluster by programming a few thousand stars to orbit in a big ball with no mass other than the stars themselves. It didn't work. The stars kind of just all dispersed at random and did not stay in a nice ball shaped globular cluster. Now it should be obvious that if there was a massive black hole in the center of the globular cluster, then all the stars could orbit it like the planets do the Sun, only not all in one plane like the planets do. And I believe some evidence of medium large black holes has been found in some globular clusters recently by the same method of using powerful telescopes to look at the orbits of stars very close to the core. And after all, what is a globular cluster but a really small galaxy.\n\nSo giant telescopes, some of them is space, are providing data never before available that just makes it more and more reasonable to assume that all galaxies have a massive black hole at the core.
281588
If two bodies (stars, black holes, anything) get close enough to be gravitationally bound they will develop some sort of orbit in which the two bodies circle each other. \n\nEinstein's theory of General Relativity predicts that when two very massive objects(like Black Holes and Neutron Stars) are caught in an orbit like this they will generate Gravitational Waves (Ripples in Space-Time). These Gravitational Waves carry energy away from the orbiting bodies which means that with each successive revolution they get closer to each other. Eventually the orbit gets so small that the two bodies merge. \n\nThe merger of two black holes entails a lot of complicated General Relativity and some non-intuitive physics, but theorists use large supercomputers to simulate such events. There are two primary results to these mergers of which we can be sure of: \n\n1. A single, more massive black hole \n\n2. An extremely powerful burst of gravitational waves \n\nThere are currently projects like LIGO which will attempt to directly detect the disturbances in space time caused by gravitational waves. They primarily expect to "see" the results of neutron star and black hole binary mergers. \n\nThere was also a recent discovery of a black hole merger in a distant galaxy though this was discovered by observing the jet streams caused by the black holes. You should note that those results are still preliminary and unconfirmed.\n\nHOWEVER!!!!\n\nIf a black hole that originated from a massive star made of anti-matter collided with another black hole that originated from a star made of "ordinary" matter what would happen? Would the black hole made from the anti-matter star retain "anti" properties such that the two black holes would annihilate each other in a brilliant flash of energy or would the merge be the same as any other black hole merge, regardless of the type of matter from which the black hole came?\n\nFirst, a matter-antimatter collision is 100% efficient. So even if you had a collision on the scale of a 10 million solar mass matter star combining with a 10 million solar mass antimatter star, all of that mass would convert into energy. For example, energy of that sort of collision would go into very high energy gamma rays. \n\nNow, the problem with extending this knowledge to the case of the two black holes you proposed has to do with John Wheeler's "no hair" theory. When a black hole is formed, since no information can leave the black hole due to its intense gravity, there is no way for us to tell what exact process or type of star created the black hole. We can only measure a black hole's mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum. Black holes will look the same to us whether they were created by a strongly magnetized star, a 'bumpy' star, or even a square star. As John Wheeler said, "A black hole has no hair." Thus we can't really talk about a black hole created by a matter star versus a black hole created by an antimatter star, let alone what would happen if they were to collide. \n\nTo find out more about black holes, I would recommend Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy.' The book is not too hard but not too easy and has very helpful illustrations.
345783
Yes, black holes can move in space,\npartially due to the law of conservation of momentum (and inertia), if it was moving before it became a black hole, it will continue to move,\nand a black hole is affected by gravity like other objects.\n\nIt has been theorized, and some experimental evidence confirms, that larger (super-massive) black holes reside within many galaxy's centers.  As we can observe, galaxies can, and do, move around...thus if they have a black hole at thier center, the black hole moves as well.
545641
Yes, sort of.\n\nTake into account first the exisistance and concept of a Black Hole, where not even light can escape.\n\nNext you must conceptualize light particles on a quantum level. Then in order for the pull of black hole to attract light, light being the ultimate speed then we can say on a quantum level there exist enegry that moves faster than light.\n\ni could be wrong.