LabRat1 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 So according to "everything in this universe has something which is same in magnitude but opposite to its nature" Blackholes have whiteholes. But there is no scientific evidence to prove such a thing. Now if we say that blackholes have an immense amount of gravity, then whiteholes should have an immense amount of antigravity(?)(lets repel everything and everyone!!). Is this why none have been found? PSQuick definition of a Whitehole: Your kid in your car after a hearty meal in the downtown restaurant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Wouldn't the opposite of a black hole be just a plain void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat1 Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 Wouldn't the opposite of a black hole be just a plain void? Well wiki says that BlackHoles suck, so Whiteholes must vomit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 So according to "everything in this universe has something which is same in magnitude but opposite to its nature" Is there any reason to think that is the case? Is this why none have been found? Probably because they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat1 Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 Is there any reason to think that is the case? Isn't this the case assumed when thinking about the cosmos as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Isn't this the case assumed when thinking about the cosmos as a whole? I don't think so. Can you give an example (other than white holes ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistermack Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 If a black hole is a bottomless well that sucks in matter and energy, the opposite would be something that expels all ANTI-MATTER and ANTI-ENERGY. How could anybody tell if they were next to a white hole? It would have expelled everything by now. And how could anything get in there in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabRat1 Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 If a black hole is a bottomless well that sucks in matter and energy, the opposite would be something that expels all ANTI-MATTER and ANTI-ENERGY. How could anybody tell if they were next to a white hole? It would have expelled everything by now. And how could anything get in there in the first place? Wouldn't the light emanating from them be caught in our cameras or telescopes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NimrodTheGoat Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Maybe whiteholes are stars themeselves . Cuz' you know, they expel light and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 "In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside, although matter and light can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can only be entered from the outside and from which matter and light cannot escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past.[1] However, this region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, nor are there any known physical processes through which a white hole could be formed. No white hole has ever been observed. "Like black holes, white holes have properties like mass, charge, and angular momentum. They attract matter like any other mass, but objects falling towards a white hole would never actually reach the white hole's event horizon[citation needed] (though in the case of the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution, discussed below, the white hole event horizon in the past becomes a black hole event horizon in the future, so any object falling towards it will eventually reach the black hole horizon). Imagine a gravitational field, without a surface. Acceleration due to gravity is the greatest on the surface of any body. But since black holes lack a surface, acceleration due to gravity increases exponentially, but never reaches a final value as there is no considered surface in a singularity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlock Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) Black holes build athoms from light otherwise today there'd be no athom to produce light! So there's no white hole because stars are the answer, and black holes energy'd come from big bang(speed). Edited March 15, 2017 by harlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Black holes build athoms from light otherwise today there'd be no athom to produce light! Do they? Do you have a reference or evidence for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlock Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Do they? Do you have a reference or evidence for that? An opinion. There're a lot of questions - Where'is the light going?....... - How much matter has been transformed into energy till now?!..... An asnwer is there's a cycle: athoms ⇔energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) So a white hole would be like a bubble or membrane that only allows for one-way passage, that is, light and energy can pass through to the outside but not pass through to the inside? What would happen when there's no longer any mass or energy inside the bubble? Would the void on the inside combined with CMBR pressure on the outside cause the bubble to shrink into nothingness, which is why we can't detect them? Any old white holes would have been emptied and crushed to nothiness from the pressure of regular space by now, and so until we can come up with a hypothetical way for them to be created, there's no evidence to suggest new ones are being made any more. Edited March 16, 2017 by Daecon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now