Please define "destroyed" in this context. What happens to it? Explosion or implosion are the only two outcomes I am aware of for a star (excluding interaction with other stellar bodies). Though, perhaps I should have been more clear. "Explosion" here does not necessarily equate to an explosion as one would normally imagine. Most of the sun's outer layers will be blown away, leaving behind the core. I purposely linked to the articles for white dwarf and neutron star to help explain this. So yes, perhaps "explosion" was not the best choice of words, but I was trying to keep it simple.
Black holes, white holes, a universe go in the black hole and comes out the white hole as an alternate universe.
Take it easy there.. What you said sounds like stuff we say when we have a puff. If you really got offended by that then I'm sorry but I wasn't trying to insult you, I was talking about your comment, not you personally okay?
Of course, this place would melt like the witch in the wizard of Oz,,we would be out wayyy before any explosion.
Also this part ''The Earth will probably be mostly destroyed with its remnants being ejected outward.'' I would think, the earth would be long gone before it gets to that point. No doubt just burn up as the sun increases in size. We would be more or less Vaporized... http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/930-what-happens-to-earth-when-sun-dies.html
Here's a fairly detailed estimate from 2004... http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/sun_and_planets/sun#p005xgcj
Try it this way instead: Gravity isn't a force or particle. Nothing has to move or travel for gravity to be exerted. (This assumption has to do with the fact that the effects of gravity are instantaneous and violate the speed of light limitation.) Instead gravity is a description of an effect or the interaction of an effect. In the case of gravity, it is a warped space time. Mass warps space. Gravity is the term we use to describe how objects behave in that area of warped space. Nothing has to travel to make gravity happen therefore there is nothing to escape the gravity well of a black hole. Then again, if the graviton theory is true, there are particles which travel to exert gravitation on objects, but, since gravity only seems to affect mass and gravitons would be massless, they still wouldn't be held back by the gravitation pull of the black hole, so wouldn't have any issue.
nope, that's the old way. Space aint 'warped' but fields do affect the energy passing thru. ie.... eddington experiment; stars light passing thru the corona, is like a mirage nope. The fields affect the space. no space bending, and no such thing as black holes. Unless you like the eye of a storm gravity is the entanglement of energy between 2 points (mass). it's that 'spooky action at a distance'. always has been. few actually read the work of the greats and like that post i just cleaned up, some are learning from news, not science. kind of like idiots follow religion versus the wisdoms of bible (torah, bible, quran, sankrit... etc...). Look into the fields of em (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes) to see how 'energy' imposes a force to mass. It's stupid easy but many forgot to pay attention to what actually exists in and of evidence, versus the existing beliefs (paradigm)
Mebbe it's already sucked most of the galaxy in it... Giant black hole in tiny galaxy confounds astronomers 29 November 2012 - Astronomers have spotted an enormous black hole - the second most massive ever - but it resides in a tiny galaxy.
Black Hole Friday a big event for NASA... Scientists Observe Rare Black Hole Event November 27th, 2015 - For many here in the United States, today, Friday 11/27/15 is something called Black Friday. Its unofficially considered to be the first shopping day of the Christmas season and many Americans mark it by heading out to shopping centers and stores in droves in hopes of finding bargains. NASA is marking the day too; only theyre calling it Black Hole Friday.
Black holes are born from stars so massive that their gravity compresses them to a sphere whose radius is less than the Schwarzschild Radius. The schwarzschild radius is the radius of a sphere, such that if all the mass is concentrated to within the sphere, to escape the gravitational pull would require an escape velocity at the speed of light. If the radius is less than the schwarzschild radius than not even light can escape the gravitational pull - which is the textbook definition of a black hole.
My strategy is not to observe too closely to Brewskier, he scares all the Black Holes away, especially when he brings up Trump and some of these stars are over a billion years old, so they're definitely not followers of Carson.
That's how small black holes form New models say that black holes have to have existed shortly after the big bang A team of astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the sun. Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known. The black hole, researchers said, is big enough to hold 1,000 of our own Solar Systems and weighs about as much as all the stars in the Milky Way. "The universe was awfully young at the time this was formed," said astronomer Roger Romani, a Stanford University associate professor whose team found the object. "It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size." Romani told SPACE.com that the black hole is unique because it dates back to just after a period researchers call the 'Dark Ages,' a time when the universe cooled down after the initial Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. That cooling period lasted about one billion years, when the first black holes, stars and galaxies began to appear, he added. The research appeared June 10 on the online version of Astrophysical Journal Letters. Invisible to the naked eye, black holes can only be detected by the radiation they spew and their gravitational influence on their stellar neighbors. Astronomers generally agree that black holes come in at least two types, stellar and supermassive. Stellar black holes form from collapsed, massive stars a few times the mass of the sun, while their supermassive counterparts can reach billions of solar masses. A supermassive black hole a few million times the mass of the sun is thought to sit at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, and some of the largest supermassives seen date have reached up to two billion solar masses, researchers said. These black holes caused starts to form galaxies, or so the theory says. That just leaves many more questions http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5318411/n...pace/t/massive-black-hole-stumps-researchers/ http://m.space.com/30651-supermassive-black-hole-surprisingly-large.html
Not to mention that if we have a technology that can control the properties of Higgs boson, we can make speed of light irrelevant This is why objects don't move faster than the speed of light. The faster you get, the more heavier you become. Eventually you will get so heavy that no propulsion system wold be able to push you forward. Higs Boson imparts mass onto other particles. In the future, we could build a device that let's us create and control a Higs field at will. So if it's put on a ship, it can work like this. The field will transfer the mass of the ship towards the space in front of it. That mass will pull the ship forward(along with its engines). The faster you go, the more mass the space in front of you gains. This will only propelled the ship even faster as more mass equals greater pull It's like being pulled and pushed forward at the same damn time
that is inaccurate. Einstein proved that Information, Energy and related matter cannot travel faster than light. OTOH, wave forms that do not contain information can. the same can be said for the early inflation of space.
Faster Than Light... That group includes researchers at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who have been trying to exploit a loophole in the rule, that could see something travel faster than light. That thing is information, and the loophole relies on forcing one pulse to propagate through a second one. If the second pulse is moving at a speed close to the speed of light, it should in theory be possible to make the first one travel faster than the speed of light. Which is, pretty much, exactly what the researchers from NIST have done, if you read their paper in Physical Review Letters. They've taken that concept—which is itself old and done before, but so badly that the results were really rather scrappy—and given it another go. The NIST scientists used a concept called four-wave mixing. That sounds complex, but it's really just a way of combining signals of different frequencies in such a way as to produce a new signal containing four separate frequencies. In fact, they took 200-nanosecond-long "seed" pulses of laser light and aimed them into a heated cell containing rubidium vapor. Then, they pumped in a second beam at a different frequency. The two beams interacted with each other, and the vapor, to produce a new pulse which itself contained a second, moving pulse. Their results suggest that the pulse-within-a-pulse went faster the speed of light. Great! http://gizmodo.com/5908206/did-scientists-really-just-break-the-speed-of-light
Note, it wasn't gas travelling faster the light. It was a wave pulse of indeterminate information. from your source:
Quite a few things can move faster than the speed of light. Those things just can't contain any information. The "pulse" you are talking about it is the group velocity, which is well known to exceed the speed of light in the right conditions. Group velocity is generally caused by the addition of frequencies. The problem is that while these groups velocities can travel faster than C, the wavefront cannot. Even in an established wave from A to B, a change in the frequencies that generated the group cannot travel faster than C. To transmit information using group velocity, the frequency has to change, and even if the new group velocity travels faster than C, the switch between the two groups (frequencies) cannot travel faster than C.
Does the pulse have energy? Or is it related to energy? What [MENTION=55255]Jonsa[/MENTION] basically said is that NOTHING can move faster than the speed of light. Yet we have this pulse.
Again, "things" can travel faster than light in the right circumstances.. The pulse does not carry energy faster than light. I don't know if you've heard of Fourier's Theorem, but I'll try to explain if not. It's like this, you set up a beam of light of a certain frequency, f, between point A and B (a laser is a good example). The waveform looks like a nice smooth sine wave. We now superimpose another beam of light, but at a different frequency, let's say 2f. The sum of the waves is no longer a nice smooth wave, it now has places of interference, where the waveform tends to either be attenuated or increased. You can take a large number of these beams with different frequencies and superimpose them, and create just about any waveform (Fourier's Theorem), including a pulse that "travels" faster than light. The reality is though, that we've already had to establish the numerous waves beforehand to create the pulse, and each one of those waves has energy themselves. What is traveling faster than light is just the interference points, not the waves or the energy. Even where the superimposed beam looks zero, there has to be light there to cancel out to zero properly. To generate the pulse, the waves had to be set up beforehand, which, being light, travel at the speed of light only. If we try to modulate the wave (send information), say by changing the frequency or amplitude of one of the beams, that frequency or amplitude change would propagate between A and B at the speed of light and no faster. You can send a mathematical point (not matter or energy) faster than light in a vacuum. That's what this is doing, creating an interference point faster than light so it is "nothing" in a sense. Other examples would be, from Earth, sweeping a laser beam across the moon. The point the laser hits the moon can travel faster than light, but not the laser beam itself. Another possibility is the point where the two blades of scissors meet. If you had large enough scissors and the means to close them quickly, you could make that point move faster than light. It's not matter though, not energy, and not information. Then there are things with mass that actually do travel faster than light, but not in a vacuum. Cherenkov Radiation production is an example.
