Talk:White hole

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Strange edit[edit]

For a second time User:Noz92 did a complete replacement [1] of the article, I reverted again for these reason:

old content, includeing referencesm was deleted
new content not very layman-friendly
it's Schwarzschild, not Swartzchild. If you don't know this, there a some doubts about your qualifications to edit this article

Pjacobi 15:49, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Can somebody who speaks Japanese check the edit by 166.121.37.7. The old link was an actual article while the current one looks like the notice of no article yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removing the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' edit[edit]

I've noticed a few times on WP that people mention things along the following lines: 'in the science fiction series blah blah blah, ... one character falls into a wormhole and blah blah blah'. It might be OK to mention stuff like that in non-scientific articles, but in the middle of scientific ones is a little out of place. Perhaps a little section on science fiction is appropriate in the scientific article (especially for controversial ideas like wormholes) - something like the article Alcubierre drive (if I remember correctly). Mpatel 08:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bubble universe[edit]

the universe should not be called as UNIverse but instead be called MULTIverse. There is NOT only 1 big bang that happen. It is possible that there is a parrallel universe somewhere! another universe made up mostly of anti-matter. Do you know the granfather paradox? Although going back in time does not affect the future, it affects the parrellel universe. So in parallel universe or in other bubble universe, it is possible that whiteholes exist there, instead of blackholes.

if any one got other doubts please post here.

Bubble universes have nothing to do with the Grandfather paradox... those are separate "existences" not universes... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.88.132 (talk • contribs) on 06:47, 8 April 2007.

Wierd sentence[edit]

In the "Overview" section, the first paragraph ends with this:

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.

Not only is it completely unrelated to everything around it, it seems to just want to say that the force of gravity (and therefore acceleration) will get stronger the closer you are to the center of mass. Here I am just going by classical mechanics, which is not what this article is about, but it seems this sentence might be. Why even invoke a "surface"? The whole thing seems strange to me.--Ribidag (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive Black Hole abbreviated SBH[edit]

Throughout science, there's a move towards uniformly abbreviating supermassive black hole as SBH. 104.190.63.217 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No references in Physical relevance chapter[edit]

Where are the sources ?

I'd like to say by the way that black holes don't get formed. They were already there before the supernova. Compression in a supernova for instance is temporary. Temporary compression cannot yield a stable black hole, it's like thinking that after a nuclear explosion, is found a nuclear reactor. It's the same absurdity who claims that each supernova creates a black hole.

As references for my own remark, you can read : The first published model https://hal.science/hal-01673630v4 A description of black hole eruptions in http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/4/4/index.html For a more advanced description with more proof http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/9/1/5/index.html The "Big Bang" black hole https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/AIVP/article/view/15578

~~ 2A01:CB1D:89:B500:8E3F:3211:538:DEBF (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way in the last peer reviewed article on the "Big Bang", I mention a white hole case, on Jupiter's surface.

~~ 2A01:CB1D:89:B500:8E3F:3211:538:DEBF (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]