Thread: the earth - heavier or lighter

Originally Posted by Perspective

well, considering a black hole is a star that becomes so massive it collapses on itself, id say this isnt feasable. Not just the replacement but the existance of the entity itself.

It is theoretically feasible. Black holes can be of any size and mass. The existance doesn't depend on mass, but on density. Scientists hope to be able to create extremly tiny black holes within particle accelerators in the future.
If you build and blow up a really large hydrogen bomb (but possible to construct on earth) the extreme pressure would create a black hole.

But for a star to turn into a black hole by its own gravity, it takes a lot more mass than the sun.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

To be totally pedantic, would the lack of heat change the orbit?

I don't think so; I don't imagine that heat has much to do with our orbit.

>To be totally pedantic, would the lack of heat change the orbit?
Not at all. Orbits are solely based on gravity and (rare) collisions.

And of course everyone got the answer right, pretty simple question.
The theory of Black Holes has a lot of evidence supporting it, with no evidence defeating it. But like a lot of astronomy, it can't be proven for sure, so it's just a really respected theory.

>But for a star to turn into a black hole by its own gravity, it takes a lot more mass than the sun.

It takes a totally different type of star. The Sun will eventually turn into a White Dwarf.

But the difference is still mass. Although the larger star will have heavier elements in it, its initial composition could have been quite nearly identical to that of the Sun, and it would still form a black hole. The cutoffs, if I remember them correctly (absolutely no guarantee there) are:
M < 3S(olar Masses) -> White Dwarf
3S < M < 10S -> Neutron Star
M > 10S -> Black Hole

>M < 3S(olar Masses) -> White Dwarf
3S < M < 10S -> Neutron Star
M > 10S -> Black Hole


you're pretty close

>different type of star.

This should read- "different classification of star."

Finals have me running on caffeine, nicotine, sugar & no sleep. Errors will insue.

Ah... that makes sense... Yeah, those numbers were dragged out of my head from two years ago, so there is bound to be a bit of error.

it's no the absolute number that matters, we can get the point from using relative numbers.

Of course, this question is a bit ambiguous unless you specify a reference frame.

Originally Posted by Perspective

>>The existance [of black holes] doesn't depend on mass
agreed, but the creation does.

Not on mass, but pressure. A lot of mass means high pressure, but the high pressure can come from other sources, for example a hydrogen bomb detonating, or a particle accelerator.

You're both right. Lamens terms, it depends on the stars mass, if it's going to become a black hole, but technically the process is pressure (that's how they're close to creating a very very small black hole in a particle accelerator).

Mass is directly proportional to the amount of heat (energy) in an object. Any substantial increase in heat to a given body yields an equivalent increase in mass (although inversely proportional to the speed of light squared). With respect to a reference frame where the big bang is assumed to be t=0, if the earth has increased in heat energy it is more massive, else it is less massive. Although I think the earth has actually cooled significantly, and I don't know what role organisms play in this matter.

edit:
How did you think of this question? It's intriguing nonetheless