How do gravitons escape the gravitational force of a black hole?
956806
The existence of gravitons has not been proven.   \n\nThe existence of gravitons is postulated by quantum theory.  For them to exist, they must be massless.  Assuming that they massless, they are unaffected by gravity.  Thus, they can escape from a blackhole.
408123
Black holes don't have a purpose they just are!\n\nHowever Wikipedia gives\n\nA black hole is a concentration of mass great enough that the force of gravity prevents anything past its event horizon from escaping it except through quantum tunnelling behaviour (known as Hawking Radiation). The gravitational field is so strong that the escape velocity past its event horizon exceeds the speed of light. This implies that nothing, not even light, inside the event horizon can escape its gravity. It is, however, theorized that wormholes can let one exit a black hole. The term "black hole" is widespread, even though it does not refer to a hole in the usual sense, but rather a region of space from which nothing can return.\n\nThe existence of black holes in the universe is well supported by astronomical observation, particularly from studying X-ray emission from X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei.
358053
Intense gravity. It just sucks everything nearby up. If you went into a black hole gravity would be stronger at your feet than at your head. You sould be stretched out like a piece of spaghetti and broken in two. Then the same thing would happen to the pieces of you. The bottom of the pieces would break off untill you're just a bunch of little tiny pieces.
211187
they become black holes
367170
A black hole is a concentration of mass great enough that the force of gravity prevents anything past its event horizon from escaping it except through quantum tunnelling behaviour (known as Hawking Radiation). The gravitational field is so strong that the escape velocity past its event horizon exceeds the speed of light. This implies that nothing, not even light, inside the event horizon can escape its gravity. It is, however, theorized that wormholes can let one exit a black hole. The term "black hole" is widespread, even though it does not refer to a hole in the usual sense, but rather a region of space from which nothing can return.\n\nThe existence of black holes in the universe is well supported by astronomical observation, particularly from studying X-ray emission from X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei.\nContents\n\nHistory\n\nThe concept of a body so massive that not even light could escape it was put forward by the English geologist John Michell in a 1783 paper sent to the Royal Society. At that time, the Newtonian theory of gravity and the concept of escape velocity were well known. Michell computed that a body 500 times the radius of the Sun and of the same density would have, at its surface, an escape velocity equal to the speed of light, and therefore would be invisible. In his words:\n\nIf the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae (inertial mass), with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.\n\nAlthough he thought it unlikely, Michell considered the possibility that many such objects that cannot be seen might be present in the cosmos.\n\nIn 1796, the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second edition of his book Exposition du Systeme du Monde. It disappeared in later editions. The whole idea gained little attention in the 19th century, since light was thought to be a massless wave, not influenced by gravity.\n\nIn 1915, Einstein developed the theory of gravity called General Relativity. Earlier he had shown that gravity does influence light. A few months later, Karl Schwarzschild gave the solution for the gravitational field of a point mass, showing that something we now call a black hole could theoretically exist. The Schwarzschild radius is now known to be the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole, but this was not well understood at that time. Schwarzschild himself thought it was not physical.\n\nIn the 1920s, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar argued that special relativity demonstrated that a non-radiating body above 1.44 solar masses, now known as the Chandrasekhar limit, would collapse since there was nothing known at that time that could stop it from doing so. His arguments were opposed by Arthur Eddington, who believed that something would inevitably stop the collapse. Both were correct, since a white dwarf more massive than the Chandrasekhar limit will collapse into a neutron star. However, a neutron star above about three solar masses will itself become unstable against collapse due to similar physics.\n\nIn 1939, Robert Oppenheimer and H. Snyder predicted that massive stars could undergo a dramatic gravitational collapse. Black holes could, in principle, be formed in nature. Such objects for a while were called frozen stars since the collapse would be observed to rapidly slow down and become heavily redshifted near the Schwarzschild radius. The mathematics showed that an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where it crosses that radius. However, these hypothetical objects were not the topic of much interest until the
631703
Black holes aren't holes in the sense that you're thinking of. A black hole is a region of spacetime (it has 3+1 dimensions like everything else) that has an event horizon (a spherical region) that nothing can escape from.\nTaking the rubber sheet analogy (this is 2+1 dimensional, two spatial dimensions, 1 time dimension), suppose there is a spherical mass placed on the stretched sheet. Depending on how massive that mass is, the sheet around the mass will be circularly distorted, creating a potential energy well. You can roll smaller masses by it. If you roll the smaller mass with too little tangent velocity, it will spiral into the larger mass. If you roll it with a great enough tangential velocity, it may change direction, but it will go right through the potential energy well.\nA black hole has a certain region of its potential energy well (the region inside the event horizon) where no velocity you give a particle will be enough to get it back out of the energy well; all particles entering the event horizon will spiral into the singularity at the center. Part of the reason for this is the limit placed on massive particle accelerations of only being able to accelerate up to the speed of light in vacuum. It is interesting to note that outside the event horizon (assuming a non-spinning black hole), gravity behaves classically. Ie., if the Sun were to collapse into a black hole (which it doesn't have the mass to do), the radius of its event horizon would be less than the current radius of the Sun, so the solar system would continue as usual; the gravitational field outside the event horizon is unchanged.\nAlso, a black hole need not be caused by the death of a star. Primordial black holes are hypothesized to be black holes that formed during the chaotic spacetime of the early universe.
94500
The gravatational pull from a black hole is so strong that the likelyhood of an object being released is slim at best. The reason it is called a black hole is because gravity is so strong it even absorbs and disburses the waves and particals that make up light. Most scientists believe that even atomic coheasion is lost so that the smallest particals of the nuclious are torn apart.
349795
I don't think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would apply here, but the related Pauli Exclusion Principle might tell you something about how the masses would combine. But I seem to recall that the whole idea of a black hole is that all known mechanisms of preventing continued collapse, including the Pauli Exclusion Principle, are overcome by gravity and so all the mass of the black hole occupies an infinitely small volume. However, the event horizon, which is the distance from the center at which the escape velocity is exactly the speed of light, would get bigger. But that calculation is a simple gravity problem and does not depend on quantum mechanics at all.
1069669
gravity is stronger, leave it down
115592
I'm not sure I understand the question.  However, newton's laws of gravitation do not describe anything like black holes.  Black holes fall out of Einstein's theories of general relativity.
196389
Like all gravitationally-formed objects, a black hole is roughly spherical in shape (like planets and stars, a rotating black hole will be slightly flattened at the poles.)  According to Hawking's theory, black holes do emit radiation (and therefore mass) in accordance with quantum rules.  Theoretically, given enough time a black hole could radiate away enough of its mass to disappear completely.  When its mass drops below a certain critical threshhold, the remaining mass of the black hole would disappear in a final violent burst of gamma radiation.  Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the best estimates we have for the time it would take for a black hole to explode in this way is far longer than the current estimated age of the universe, so it is not likely we would be able to test this theory through direct observation.
1139350
Light does not have mass, thus the previous explanations are incorrect. In the simplest sense, a black hole, like all massive objects, curves space-time. When a black hole is created, the "fabric" of space-time is twisting into the blackhole. At the event-horizon, space-time has begun twisting into a point of no return in a sense where it continues into the center of the black hole. The reason light cannot escape a black hole is because although the light travels through space-time, space-time itself is falling into the black hole. The light is following a straight path in its view, it's just that the path is twisting into the black hole.
745944
Loosely speaking, a black hole is a region of space that has so much mass concentrated in it that there is no way for a nearby object to escape its gravitational pull. Since our best theory of gravity at the moment is Einstein's general theory of relativity, we have to delve into some results of this theory to understand black holes in detail, but let's start of slow, by thinking about gravity under fairly simple circumstances. \nSuppose that you are standing on the surface of a planet. You throw a rock straight up into the air. Assuming you don't throw it too hard, it will rise for a while, but eventually the acceleration due to the planet's gravity will make it start to fall down again. If you threw the rock hard enough, though, you could make it escape the planet's gravity entirely. It would keep on rising forever. The speed with which you need to throw the rock in order that it just barely escapes the planet's gravity is called the "escape velocity." As you would expect, the escape velocity depends on the mass of the planet: if the planet is extremely massive, then its gravity is very strong, and the escape velocity is high. A lighter planet would have a smaller escape velocity. The escape velocity also depends on how far you are from the planet's center: the closer you are, the higher the escape velocity. The Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 kilometers per second (about 25,000 m.p.h.), while the Moon's is only 2.4 kilometers per second (about 5300 m.p.h.). \n\nNow imagine an object with such an enormous concentration of mass in such a small radius that its escape velocity was greater than the velocity of light. Then, since nothing can go faster than light, nothing can escape the object's gravitational field. Even a beam of light would be pulled back by gravity and would be unable to escape. \n\nThe idea of a mass concentration so dense that even light would be trapped goes all the way back to Laplace in the 18th century. Almost immediately after Einstein developed general relativity, Karl Schwarzschild discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an object. It was only much later, with the work of such people as Oppenheimer, Volkoff, and Snyder in the 1930's, that people thought seriously about the possibility that such objects might actually exist in the Universe. (Yes, this is the same Oppenheimer who ran the Manhattan Project.) These researchers showed that when a sufficiently massive star runs out of fuel, it is unable to support itself against its own gravitational pull, and it should collapse into a black hole.
161235
A graviton is the name. The existance of this particle has´n´t been confirmed yet but hopefully it will be soon.
178554
goes in the black hole ->O.\nonce past the point of Singularity which is believe to be much smaller than an atom's nucleus. then past the event horizon where time becomes irrelevant. and if that something is still in 1 piece, then it should come out to the white hole O->.
573101
Small black holes will have larger tidal forces. They also have have a larger amount of Hawking radiation. The radius of a black hole is determined by the mass of the black hole. Larger black holes are typically at the centers of galaxies. Smaller black holes are more randomly positioned.
769602
When a star runs out of nuclear fuel, and therefore continues to lose energy from the surface (it is emitting light energy), while not replacing the lost energy through nuclear fusion (no more nuclear fuel), gravity will win out over internal pressure and the star will contract slowly or collapse quickly depending upon the details of the internal structure and composition. Gravity wins out over the internal pressure of the star, because that pressure was produced by a normal, hot gas, and that gas is losing energy as the star radiates energy from the surface. \n\nThe star may thus end up as a black hole.