• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

more info on the Black Hole Feats in Fiction (BHFIF) page

FRIMI

FRIMI

1,712
249
There is a lot of useful information on this page about the relavent implications of characters interacting with black holes as well as what about them in fiction tends to be unrealistic. A lot of this info can be used to disprove something as being a black hole. However, there doesn't appear to be any information on what evidence is sufficient in proving that some otherwise ambiguous thing is a black hole. It would be super helpful if there were a section of the page going over what is sufficient in proving something to be a black hole, or at least to create a seperate page for it, though it would seem to fit the BHFIF page pretty well.
 
You should ask DontTalkDT to comment here.
 
You can tell DontTalkDT that it is about black holes and that I would appreciate a reply from him.
 
Hmmmm.... well, aside from not conflicting with the things on the page and being reliably stated to be a black hole, I wonder what one could actually add in that regard.

Generally, for example, worm holes and black holes are pretty hard to differentiate just by looking at them. They are somewhat similar any many respects.


Things like visibly bending like also outside the event horizon, having appropiate gravitational pull for their mass, having hawking radiation (which one can of course not see, but would have to be mentioned) etc. helps I guess.

But a black, light bending, radiating object with lots of mass isn't necessarily a black hole either, so it mostly comes down to statements and not behaving overly unrealistic.
 
@DTDT

Do you think that the page needs to be adjusted with some clarifications?
 
Antvasima said:
@DTDT

Do you think that the page needs to be adjusted with some clarifications?
Click to expand...
I don't know. If there is a good suggestion for a set of properties that can be identified that would definitely make something a black hole we could add that. Personally I would usually just go by statements to identify them.

Badrimoine2019 said:
Do you think it should be a Black hole?
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like a black hole to me. If there is nothing further said regarding it I would say no. Though that's kinda off-topic here.
 
perhaps if the method of creating it is shown, that could be used as evidence? For instance, if it's shown to have been made from a large dying star, or if it's shown that there's a large amount of matter becoming more and more dense, those might be used as evidence in the face of a lack of in-universe clarification
 
FRIMI said:
perhaps if the method of creating it is shown, that could be used as evidence? For instance, if it's shown to have been made from a large dying star, or if it's shown that there's a large amount of matter becoming more and more dense, those might be used as evidence in the face of a lack of in-universe clarificatio
Click to expand...
I guess that could work. I will think about how to put such stuff on the page.
 
@DTDT how it's not a black hole? Please watch the video again starting from 1:54 you can clearly see that what Alien x created is similar to a real black hole
 
OK, here is my suggestion.

Recognizing Black Holes
Aside from recognizing what is not a realistic black hole, we of course also have to figure out what might be a black hole in the first place. Under normal circumstances if a character encounters something as amazing as a black hole there will be a statement regarding that. If the statement is reliable and it, of course, doesn't behave unrealistic we can assume it to be a proper black hole.

If the statement is not very reliable typical black hole properties such as bending light also outside the event horizon, having the appropriate gravitational pull for a black hole of that size, having Hawking Radiation and so on can help support the statement.

Should there be no statement about a black hole like object being a black hole at all one could still argue it to be a black hole, if the method of creation is known. If it is created by extreme compression of an appropriate amount of matter or due to the collapse of a star, the assumption that it is a black hole seems natural. One should not speculate on a creation by high concentration of energy, without a statement that the object is a black hole.

In any cases the black hole in question still has to behave realistically, of course.

As usual it might need some improvements on grammar and formulation.
 
That is probably fine. Thank you. Unfortunately I do not have enough available time to fix the grammar and structure, so it will likely have to do, unless somebody else is willing to handle it.
 
Recognizing Black Holes

Aside from recognizing what is not a realistic black hole, it is also important to figure out what might be a black hole in the first place. Under normal circumstances, if a character encounters something resembling a black hole, there will often be a statement regarding that. If the statement is from a reliable source and it doesn't behave in an unrealistic manner as outlined previously, it can be safely assumed to be a proper black hole.

If for any reason the statement is unreliable, typical black hole properties such as bending light also outside the event horizon, having the appropriate gravitational pull for a black hole of its given size, displaying Hawking Radiation, and so on can help to support the statement.

In the event that there is not a statement about a black hole-like object actually being a black hole at all, one could still argue it to be a black hole if the method of creation is known. If, for instance, it is created by extreme compression of an appropriate amount of matter or due to the collapse of a large star, the assumption that the resulting mass is a black hole would be reasonable. However, a creation by high concentration of energy should not be considered without a supporting statement that the object in question is a black hole.

In all cases any given black hole must still have to behave realistically, of course.


It was already pretty much good, but I changed some wordings and added some missing commas if you want to use this version
 
I think that FRIMI's version seems fine to use. Thank you for helping out.

Are you willing to apply it DontTalkDT?
 
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I just now read the Black Hole page, and it says, "That has multiple reasons. For one thing the center of a black hole is a point. If one were to focus energy on a single point that would mean that the energy becomes infinitely dense, which means that it in itself would become a black hole."

Why's it described this way? GR does not in any way say that the center of a Black Hole is a point (Unless by point, you meant something that's predicted to have 0 volume under this model?), and well, besides the fact that GR fails to even describe it.

And also, "that would mean that the energy becomes infinitely dense, which means that it in itself would become a black hole." makes no sense.
 
Giygas3 said:
Why's it described this way? GR does not in any way say that the center of a Black Hole is a point (Unless by point, you meant something that's predicted to have 0 volume under this model?), and well, besides the fact that GR fails to even describe it.
Click to expand...
The center is technically a point by definition. The singularity can also be a circle or something, but the point is that it has 0 volume. GR describes it to the extent the article is about. Physicists are not sure whether the description meets reality yet, but for the time being it is the best we can go by.

And also, "that would mean that the energy becomes infinitely dense, which means that it in itself would become a black hole." makes no sense.

And why not? If you take x joules and concentrate it into 0 volume you gain a mass-energy concentration of infinite, which results in a black hole.
 
"The center is technically a point by definition."

Maybe it's just a nit-pick from how I see the definition usually getting thrown around, but yes, you're technically correct.

"The singularity can also be a circle or something, but the point is that it has 0 volume."

Sure.

"Physicists are not sure whether the description meets reality yet, but for the time being it is the best we can go by."

Using a GR artifact, which comes from not having a complete theory of Quantum Gravity - It's better to not work with it period. That's what most Physicist do.

"If you take x joules and concentrate it into 0 volume you gain a mass-energy concentration of infinite, which results in a black hole."

It's possible that it could be infinite, but what you're doing would just be Undefined, No?
 
@FR Yes, you're correct, but in his comment, he never took the limit of anything, so I cannot base it on that.
 
"Using a GR artifact, which comes from not having a complete theory of Quantum Gravity - It's better to not work with it period. That's what most Physicist do."

Not a practical option for us, as we have to deal with instances of characters physically encountering black holes and singularities now. We need to judge them based on our current understanding, which also happens to be the understanding these works were written with.

"It's possible that it could be infinite, but what you're doing would just be Undefined, No?"

It would be infinitely dense in the "eventually higher than any finite density" sense. No need to bother with the mathematical details in an article like this as long as it gets the point across.
 
oh I just understood it as d=m/v, so for some constant m, as v approaches 0, d approaches infinity. its not super complicated when you frame it like that, right?
 
@DTDT

Are you fine with if I close this thread, or is there something left to do here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tr&Lokumu
  • Locked
Finn The Human 2C upgrade
Replies
36
Views
3K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Gendolfgg1
Upgrading the Swampfire's Level
Replies
26
Views
2K
Gendolfgg1
Gendolfgg1
KingArthur561
zogratis singularity gravity
2 3
Replies
93
Views
7K
King_Gorilla4002-8922
King_Gorilla4002-8922
Spectra_Schiffer
Massively Pain (Nagato) AP/Range revisions
Replies
4
Views
541
Spectra_Schiffer
Spectra_Schiffer
  • Locked
Bringing back DBS Pretty Black Hole Legitimacy
2 3 4
Replies
144
Views
8K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Back
Top