This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The current article text contains:
"This is different from other field theories such as electromagnetism, which do not have any friction or resistivity at the microscopic level, because they are time-reversible."
I think the friction or resistivity actually causes the time-reversibility, instead of the other way around. So I propose:
"This is different from other field theories such as electromagnetism, which do not have any friction or resistivity at the microscopic level, and are therefore time-reversible."
Any objections?Redav (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Black hole has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Siddarthkoushik (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)hii I want write short answer for students who want it short answer for black hole
Not done: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
can someone add a picture of the Sagittarius A* black hole. BrokeStudent69 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
"no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it."
I believe it to be the case that photons do not touch a black hole, and simply go past it. Light always goes in straight line, but black holes bend spacetime and therefore cause light to go "around" the black hole; light does not touch it. Is this incorrect? --94.15.6.115 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi all - not my field whatsoever, but I have read a bit about Hawking raditation. The beginning part of this wiki states that no electromagnetic radiation is emitted from a black hole. Should this be highlighted to show that, within the theory of Hawking radiation, this might not be completely true? Jamzze (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. There appears to be a misconception going around that light is gravitationally pulled into a black hole. The wording here brings that to mind and doesn't seem entirely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.6.115 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Are black holes real https://astrophile0.space/are-black-holes-real/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utka05 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The event horizon could be a optical illusion because it may not have mass. Since the beyond the event horizon is near instant absorbtion into the singularity. The Event Horizon might not have mass and therefore could be a optical illusion. Randomsmartkid (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a continual entry of matter to excite. How can hawking radiation be emitted if they are not Hot? 152.76.2.2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Today I wanted to add the following to the introduction:
There is no risk for earth to be destroyed by a black hole<ref>((Cite web|url=https://science.thewire.in/aerospace/earth-black-hole-threat/|title=Can Earth Be Affected by a Black Hole in the Future?|work=[[The Wire (India)]]|date=2019-08-02|access-date=2022-12-16))</ref> within the next four billion years.<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.ibtimes.com/earth-danger-getting-devoured-black-hole-2820077|title=Is Earth In Danger Of Getting Devoured By A Black Hole?|work=[[International Business Times]]|date=2019-08-30|access-date=2022-12-16))</ref>
It was removed as "not needed", but I believe this point to be the most relevant of all. Best regards,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Black hole has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please undo this edit with the rationale that it adds nothing of use to the article. It's another pointless WP:PROSELINE addition, with no apparent significance or context for the reader. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Something was presented" gives no useful information to the reader– what kind of assertion is this? If your worried about attribution, it's available in the cite. The sentence provides useful information about the state of observational evidence in the section about observational evidence. small jars
tc
21:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Artem.G, Blaze Wolf, FlightTime, Huntster, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, and Viriditas: - FWIW - as OA - seems the edit at issue, along with several related WP:RS references,[1][2] is worthy - it's *entirely* ok with me to improve the text of course - also - please WP:AGF and/or WP:NPA - Thanks - iac - Drbogdan (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
References
In his book the Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003) the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin gives arguments opposing existence of black holes. Pleas add this book to the literature and more: Explain whether he is right or wrong with solid argumentation. (Jitso Keizer, www.janjitso.blogspot.com for more info). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The citation for the M87 black hole image does not appear to link to the correct article. Should be https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.241.149 (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela 106.210.59.75 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela 106.210.59.75 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)