What is a Black Hole?
A black hole is an astronomical concept that describes an area of space with an intense gravitational pull that basically “sucks” in its surroundings, and nothing — not even light — can escape. Scientists debate whether they exist at all. Some claim that they’re just an invented explanation for a phenomenon that can’t otherwise be rationalized, namely the disappearance of matter in space; for others, though, these areas are very real. It’s unclear exactly how the holes are formed, but most experts believe that they come about as a consequence of star death. They’re difficult to document, and researchers are usually only able to identify them by measuring force fields and energy outputs. Unlike most stars and other cosmic entities, they are all but invisible with the eyes.
Formation
These holes are usually known by their huge concentration of mass, which gives them an immense gravitational pull. Most astronomers believe that they form over many hundreds and thousands of years after stars die. When stars burn out, their energy can either explode off into the cosmos or be compressed and compacted into a very small space. The latter is what most researchers think happens at the beginning.
There are many stars in space, and up close they looks really different than the twinkles most people are used to seeing in the sky. Most of them are fireballs full of energy. The sun is the closest star to Earth, and is the most familiar one for many, but it’s actually on the smaller side — scientists do not think the sun is large enough to ever have the capacity to create a black hole upon its death. According to most data, a dying star would have to weigh at least ten times more than the sun to create such an area.
How They’re Identified
Though scientists cannot see these voids, when they find areas in space where large amounts of mass are contained in a small volume and the area is dark, chances are there is a black hole nearby. Most of the time these calculations are made mathematically rather than through direct observation. There isn’t usually anything to see, but there’s often a lot to feel. No person or human-made ship or object is ever believed to have encountered one of these holes directly, and the only evidence of their existence comes through calculations and formulaic derivations of astronomers. They are generally believed to exist near the fringes of the galaxy, very far from Earth and the other planets in the identified solar system.
Gravitational Considerations
The voids are usually characterized first and foremost by their gravitational pulls. It’s widely believed that nothing can escape this pull, not even light; in fact, the lack of light is what accounts for the "black" part of the name. The gravitational forces will cause the region to remain dark infinitely.
Scientists generally think that the gravitational pull radiates out from the center of the space, often extending far out into the perimeter. Though no one has come near enough to a black hole to test things out, it’s believed that any object approaching would first experience a floating, gliding sensation. This would be a more or less pleasant experience as the gravitational forces would be similar to simply orbiting the earth at first. However, as the object moved closer and closer, the hole would begin to exert more pull. Eventually, the pull would be so strong as to destroy matter by breaking it apart as it sucked towards the center of the hole. Researchers also have a number of theories about how time is conceptualized in this space, and often think that seconds and minutes essentially “freeze,” or at least dramatically slow, once the threshold into the void has been crossed.
Scientific Controversy
Whether or not these spaces actually exist is a matter of some controversy in the scientific community. In part this is because there isn’t actually much tangible evidence to identify them, and there’s a lot that still remains unknown about how and why they’re formed. Most researchers who’ve spent time studying the cosmos will readily admit that there’s a lot that remains unknown. There is significant backing for the theories of gravitational space voids, but much of it is based on speculation and best guesses from numerical readings and charts.
AS FEATURED ON:
AS FEATURED ON:
-
![A dying star would need to be significantly more massive than the sun to form a black hole.]()
By: James ThewA dying star would need to be significantly more massive than the sun to form a black hole. -
![Astronomers believe there are black holes in space, but no direct evidence has yet been discovered.]()
By: pixbox77Astronomers believe there are black holes in space, but no direct evidence has yet been discovered. -
![Black holes are usually known by their huge concentration of mass, which gives them an immense gravitational pull.]()
By: DRBlack holes are usually known by their huge concentration of mass, which gives them an immense gravitational pull. -
![The general theory of relativity illustrates how gravity causes light to bend.]()
By: koya979The general theory of relativity illustrates how gravity causes light to bend.
Discussion Comments
All black holes are sub-atomic. Anything larger than sub-atomic in size can only approximate a black hole. What your physicists call black holes, like the center of the 'milky way' are not black holes at all. I know what they are but obviously you have to figure that out. In order to figure that out, you must understand what actually causes gravity. Happy trails people.
Physicists got it wrong. Nothing resides in a black hole. Open your minds, people. Maybe I should write a book because you don't seem to be getting it.
What you call "black holes" and that which creates them are a necessary part in the universal cycle. Physicists fail to understand black holes because they fail to understand gravity. What part do you think they might fulfill?
@saranoff: When someone says that the gravity of a black hole is so strong that even light cannot escape, that tells me that someone does not understand the nature of gravity or light. I am keen to know your thoughts on that, if any.
Post 66: Interesting! Are you an etherist? Are you working on a theory or just a passive observer?
I believe the cosmic environment can not tolerate the existence of a black hole as described by Hawking. What are your thoughts?
Yes, the existing theory of black holes is wrong. Einstein's theory contains contradictions here, although it is correct in other regions. Here is a paper you can read: "The Theory of Static Gravitational Field," by Jaroslav Hynecek, Applied Physics Research; Vol. 4, No. 4; 2012; ISSN 1916-9639 E-ISSN 1916-9647
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
@post 64: I believe the existing theory regarding black holes is wrong. Do you have any thoughts re that, or do you just enjoy dumping on people who do? Do you believe that which wisegeek has presented? What are your thoughts?
@anon304898: "...many people who don't know anything..." If you disagree, you must express yourself in clear English. You must state my arguments and the reasons you do not agree. Your post is a collection of meaningless emotional words, unfortunately. I am puzzled by your response, and am curious about you, your education, profession, age.
Again, I said math is a collection of arbitrary consistent statements. These statements must be meaningful. This is what the word consistent means. Your statements are meaningless, and therefore not consistent.
@Post 62: So, to sum up, you're regurgitating that which you heard or read. This is precisely why mainstream science is where it is today: too many people who don't know anything, like a ship without a rudder, spending billions of taxpayer dollars trying to find things that don't exist, but are suggested by scientific theories that are just wrong.
Black holes are numerous in this universe, but you have to know where to look, and they are not what you might think.
“Math is simply a tool of physics.” We need to understand these words in order to analyze this statement.
A mathematical system is a collection of arbitrary consistent statements, along with the logical conclusions. Although each system must be self-consistent, different systems may contradict each other. Mathematics is a human creation, independent of observations. A theory of physics is a mathematical system along with empirical data. Physics includes physical theories, observations, experiments, and partial explanations (hypotheses).
Modern ideas about mathematics are different from ancient ideas. Plato thought that mathematics is something that exists, and people merely discover aspects of mathematics. Today we say that people create mathematics, not discover mathematics.
We cannot restrict mathematics to being a part of physics. Here are some examples of mathematics. We live in a three-dimensional world. This means that to specify the position of an object we need three numbers. We can speak about higher dimensions, including infinite dimensions (Hilbert space). We know that sets are collections of objects. We can speak about infinite sets, such as the set of natural numbers. We can also speak about the set of all points between 0 and 1, and note that the number of elements in this set is larger than the number of elements in the set of natural numbers. Cantor is the mathematician who developed this. The key to your understanding is the proper understanding of mathematics and physics.
@post 60: You demonstrate that you understand some formulas, but you also demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of those items you plug into the formulas. Math is simply a tool of physics. You will fail to truly comprehend until you have a theory which makes sense of it all. I agree with paragraph four. The key to your understanding is contained in your last paragraph.
@anon304559: Momentum is a quantity an object has, that force changes. Mass is momentum divided by speed. We can measure force and speed, and so get mass. Gravity is a force.
Force times distance is work. Work is the change in energy. This is what energy is. I do not understand your comment about energy’s purpose.
As we apply a force to an object, we increase the momentum. As the speed increases the mass increases. As the speed approaches c, the speed of light, all the work on the object goes to increasing the mass. In other words, for speeds near c, force does not change the velocity but only the mass. This is why c cannot be exceeded.
Maybe our current theories of science are wrong, of course, but any new and better theory must agree with existing theories to the extent to which they have been empirically verified, e.g., Einstein’s gravity theory agrees with Newton’s gravity to the extent that Newton’s gravity has been verified.
A black hole is meaningful only within Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Since we have not empirically verified this for huge gravity, we today cannot definitely state that black holes exist.
@post 58: You demonstrate the current problem with mainstream physics. You simply don't understand that which you profess to understand.
Post 1 is "close" to correct, but you cannot see it because of your educational blinders. Do you know the difference between gravity and mass? Do you know what energy is, and its functional purpose in the universe? Do you know why the universe is not expanding? Do you know why traveling through the center of our galaxy would not land you on the surface of a super compressed matter ball you might call a "black hole"? I suspect you don't, and you can thank your educational blinders for that.
If you haven't the ability to question then you will achieve little understanding. Maybe you should try string theory, although lotr is better sci-fi. All the energy in the universe to achieve light speed? Let's just throw in the towel now.
In fact, a black hole is only the appearance of a black hole, with all its apparent attributes. I am surprised even Hawking couldn't figure that out.
"If just under the right circumstances, a shuttle was made faster than light..." To reach light speed, we need all the energy in the universe. It would take forever to reach the BH.
@anon22738: If it takes forever to reach the surface, how are you going to go further? To reach the speed of light, the shuttle will need all the energy in the universe.
A black hole is just a form of matter. Technically, a black hole is a suction cup. The black hole's gravitational pull will pull basically anything with weight. That is my theory. If you agree, post back.
@elama: Here's a question for any wise geek. Does a black hole represent the ultimate density of matter in the universe? And if so, why?
@anon281313: "The human mind can solve any problem!"
1. This is not true. Some problems cannot be solved.
2. The first step is to state the problem. When stating the problem, be sure that the words you use are meaningful.
3. Check your work. Check that you stated the problem correctly.
Having said this, what does your post have to do with black holes?
@elama: The human mind can solve any problem! Those of you who think it cannot simply provide the stimulus for those of us who think it can!
@anon280808: “Only your mind limits you and your capabilities.” Wrong. Science consists of two parts. One is logical, starting from basic principles. This is mathematics. Second is the empirical evidence. For this we need measuring tools that have to agree with scientific principles. Other things that you imagine are things like art and such, not science. This discussion is about science.
“Enormous power it takes to create them.” Wrong. It does not take power, but instead releases power while being created.
“Nothing is wasted in the universe.” You have not explained what you mean by wasted, and so your statement is irrelevant.
“Light does not show us the whole picture.” Of course. Gödel proved that no logical system could fully explain all the true statements. This means that there will always be true things in the universe that we cannot explain.
@elama-re-saranoff: Only your mind limits you and your capabilities. I can imagine black holes and the enormous power it takes to create them. This is why I see them only in the center of spiral galaxies (which are the engines required to create them). Very dense star remnants may be a common thing in the universe but they are not black holes.
Also, nothing is wasted in the universe. Everything that it produces is used in some way. Given that some subatomic particles are extremely small, we have a lot of discovery and understanding to yet achieve before we get up to the size of brown dwarfs.
If mainstream physics teaches us anything, it is that light does not show us the whole picture, but our minds allow us to leap beyond apparent limitations. I believe that our minds are expanding, and not the universe.
@anon280713: Sorry, but I do not follow your logic. I said going faster than light is going back in time. Since this is impossible, as it is illogical, therefore going faster than light is impossible. Did you not understand me?
@elama-re-saranoff: Well, let me clarify. In post 42 I stated “Going faster than the speed of light does not make you go back in time”. In post 43 you stated “yes, it does. You are wrong.” In post 44 I gave a simple analogy to support my statement, which apparently, you did not understand. So, I will try again: Imagine I am able to travel to a point in space 9.5 trillion kilometers from earth in 1 second and travel back to earth in the next second (all measured in earth time). So the total earth time for my trip is 2 seconds and I have travelled a distance equivalent to two light years.
Your position is that I would travel back in time and arrive at earth before I left, is it not? My position is that any theory that results in this kind of paradox is bogus. You need to re-evaluate and, if you respond, please do so in your own words, and don’t quote or list the works of others. I have a fundamental understanding of gravity and em energy. I know what causes them and how they work. This is why I question some of the fundamentals of mainstream physics and you should also.
@anon280531: "Time is a concept of man-mathematics". No, it is a concept of physics. We need a physical theory to define time, and measuring tools.
"possibility of a solution". What is the problem?
"Imagine planet X as 1 light year (LY) away..."
Wrong. For example, it takes 8.3 minutes for light to go from the sun to earth. The reality is the sun's position 8.3 minutes ago. The forces of em and gravitation refer to the "retarded" position of the sun. Lionard-Wichard potential (if I spelled them correctly).
I do not know what you mean by time reversing itself.
I could say a lot more.
@elama-re-saranoff: Let’s see if I understand you. You believe it’s impossible to go faster than the speed of light because that’s the speed of information? And if you exceed the speed of information you must go back in time? Okay, well, just because we currently cannot exceed the speed of light does not mean we will not at some future date.
I have discovered that if you turn off your mind to the possibility of a solution, then you virtually turn off your ability to find that solution. You obviously have more “faith” in the mainstream physics (which have led to your conclusions) than I do. Time is a concept of man-mathematics; it always moves forward. Imagine planet X as 1 light year (LY) away. When we view planet X, the image we get is one year old. If we could view planet Earth from planet X at the same moment in time, the image of earth would be one year old. Now, instantaneously moving to planet X to view Earth (which means you moved faster than light) did not reverse time; it only reversed the time-attenuated “light” images. However, my mind is open. I would really appreciate you giving me a simple analogy of time reversing itself so that I may get past my apparent road block.
"Going faster than the speed of light does not make you go back in time..." Yes, it does. You are wrong. The speed of light is the speed of information. If you can go faster than light you will get somewhere before the information. Furthermore, it takes infinite amount of energy to reach light speed.
Re: black holes. Yes, the gravity is strong. What are the physics of gravity in this region? Einstein's theory? Scientists are not sure. See Physics Essays, papers by me (Aranoff) and Jerry Hynecek.
@Elama71512: Why do physicists set themselves up for failure? Going faster than the speed of light does not make you go back in time. It just means you have figured out how to get beyond the limitations of mainstream physics. I believe it is possible and so should you.
With respect to black holes, consider that which occurs at the center of our galaxy as analogous to solar sun spots, only trillions of times larger and more powerful. It is not matter based but seems to have tremendous gravity. Can it be traversed? I believe so, but, in order to do so unscathed, we must travel faster than the speed of light, have the correct trajectory and meet a few other conditions. Otherwise, you're bug squat. Strangely, the black hole would assist in this endeavor.
"If just under the right circumstances, a shuttle was made faster than light...” This is a very serious mistake you made, and so I need to clarify it. Science is based upon fundamental principles, logical conclusions from these principles and empirical verification. Going faster than light means going back into time (cannot explain this here) violating the principle of causality (cause precedes effect), and so is not valid. The people on this forum seem to be puzzled by the idea of a black hole. Well, since it is so puzzling, it is wrong. The idea of a black hole is false.
We know that Einstein’s theory of gravitation has been verified for objects in our solar system, but has not been verified for the regions near huge masses, like the center of our galaxy. Therefore, we cannot say it is a valid scientific theory there, but merely a hypothesis.
There are other theories of gravitation that agree with objects in our solar system, such as scalar-tensor, MOND, and others. Several publications have shown clearly that the idea of a black hole contains contradictions. Therefore, the logical conclusion that a black hole exists is not logical. For a further discussion, see "Basic Assumptions and Black Holes", Physics Essays 22, 559 (2009). You may find this paper online.
@anon 22738: You might want to know that, even if a space shuttle was able to go faster than the speed of light, you would also be crushed, or torn apart by tidal gravitation. Plus, even if that did not happen, you would be stuck in the black hole anyway because the escape velocity would keep getting higher and higher so you would not go to a different part of the galaxy. You would be stuck.
"If just under the right circumstances, a shuttle was made faster than light". I am insulted at this nonsense. Stop wasting people's time!
By way of quantum tunneling, particles can escape a black hole.
“A shuttle was made faster than light”. The speed of light is derived from the equations of electromagnetism, by C. Maxwell at the end of the 19th century. A postulate of physics is that the laws of physics are the same in all moving systems. If a searchlight is shining on a laboratory on the ground, and they measure the speed of light, and another laboratory is on a truck moving at a constant velocity, both will measure the same speed. This is not true for baseballs.
Imagine a spaceship accelerating. No matter how fast it goes, when it measures the speed of light by this searchlight, the speed is the same. How then can it speed up faster than the speed of light? It does not make any sense!
Anon, where did you go to school? Why are you so misinformed about basic simple physics? May I suggest a few books?
See "Teaching and Helping Students Think and Do Better."
Also see the new book "Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living." Rational thinking starts with clearly stated principles, continues with logical deductions, and then examines empirical evidence to possibly modify the principles.
You will see that your idea of a spaceship exceeding the speed of light leads to contradictions, and so is not part of science.
A black hole could theoretically be a hole. The power of i's gravity will tear space-time and create a wormhole, which exits via a white hole (which might be quasars). However, a wormhole cannot theoretically exist for more then a few seconds due to immense gravity from the black hole and from undefinable amounts of matter and radiation traveling through it. However, it still is a possibility.
From what I have read, heard, and seen, a black hole isn't really a hole but matter that has been crushed beyond definition and results in a super strong gravitational pull.
There is no way that there could be a white hole on the other side that would put you in another part of the universe for the reasons that, 1) the matter coming out of a white hole is already crushed beyond definition so it wouldn't matter any more, and 2) if you could somehow survive that, then the only place that the white hole could go is inside the mater at the center of the black hole which again doesn't make sense because the matter that your going into has already been crushed beyond definition leaving no room to fit anything, forget a universe.
It is hard to readily define a black hole because we can't picture it, but I will use Einstein's amazing sheet of space-time. We will drop a ball on it to represent our black hole. Imagine that the ball we drop on there is very tiny, yet so heavy that when it finally comes to a stop, you can no longer see it, even if you look straight into the 'hole' with a light. It is possible to make something travel over this 'hole' but only if you supply it with the more than necessary power to propel it over and beyond this 'black hole'.
I will be frank now because of time pressure: anything that falls into a black hole is also crushed beyond definition so it to no longer matters. Yes, it becomes part of the black hole.
@Facebook_User_1194140753: If black holes are the center of the universe, then there would be billions of centres of the universe as that's how many black holes there are estimated by astronomers.
We have a 4 million times the mass of our sun located at the center of our own galaxy 27,000 light years away. M87 has a 6.4 billion times the mass of our sun and OJ 287 has 18 billion solar masses, these are all known as supermassive and are generally referred to as "giants" because in the simplest terms, they are!
I say that the black hole is the absolute center of our universe. Imagine that any universe has the form of the most ancient symbol: The infinity symbol. I say that this symbol has a different meaning from this one we have have been taught so far. Within its figure is the form of our universe inside the whole creation.
The center of it is our -single- black hole (where the lines are crossed). We get no light from it because light is bended more than 10 out of 360 degrees in that point. And no, you don't disappear, or destroyed if you get close to it. You just cross over, to the other half of our universe.
It is the highway of energy, and it has to be there, so massive energy flows from one way to another, like a highway. This (symbol of infinite) is created by another also most ancient symbol: The circle. If you twist a figure of an elastic circle, you get the symbol of infinite (8 - in side ways). This is also the most basic theory I have about the form of our universe.
You can also think of it like a hour glass, without the glass.
Black holes have infinite density and are able to suck up anything. Even if you are much larger than it. If a black hole were close to the star v.v. sephia, it would be able to take it in. What would happen is that it would break it into parts.
Since stars are made up of gas, it will take in as much of it as possible at a time. At this, the star will become very small and in a certain amount of time, (anonymous) and this is quite possible.
Black holes are not black because light cannot escape. Black holes are black because the medium for light transfer is not present. Light is an E-M pressure wave in normal space. Need I say more?
If the gravity of black holes is so strong that even light cannot escape, then how is it that feeding black holes are supposed to spit-out neutrinos and energy? Note that they are not sucked back, they are ejected as if repelled.
Physicists should realize that the energy and particle stream are the end-products of normal matter encountering a black hole. The black hole retains nothing. It is an effect only, caused by the rotational dynamic of it's host galaxy.
If you were able to reduce this galactic dynamic somehow, then the black hole would also reduce. Light received by our orbital and planet based telescopes is a time attenuated signal. The further the galaxy, the older the signal.
The evidence of galaxy formation up to black hole formation and beyond is there for the discovering. I am going on about this because this is key to understanding the whole picture: how gravity works and why it is fundamental to the unified theory of physics.
If you understand light, you know why it cannot be drawn into a black hole? Quiz: Please tell me why normal space has weight?
Black holes in fact, do have mass. they are infinitely dense, but also small. But it is still matter, and most matter has mass. Black holes consume stars, that we know have weight. Where is the mass going?
As I have previously stated: a black hole actually has no mass, yet it has tremendous gravity -- and here's another kicker. While attracting normal matter, it actually repels dark matter ( all your usual sub-atomic constituents). A feeding black hole simply removes that which provides binding energy. Remember, gravity both attracts and repels. What our physicists should be focused on is a "unified theory" which explains what is attracted and what is repelled and why. The question most 'armchair' physicists ponder, I think, is "if gravity is the weakest force, why is it also the strongest force(backhoe)?"
A black hole actually has no mass. It has tremendous gravity and therefore the appearance of mass. A black hole is merely an opening in normal space. Sure it takes the rotational dynamic of a massive spiral galaxy to create it, but by its nature it can contain nothing. Also, it is not spherical in shape. It is a membrane with a thick ring perimeter in line with the galactic plane. It can feed in both directions which is why it can jet energy and particles in both directions. It is "not" a doorway to other dimensions. Since it is the absence of normal space, normal matter enters but only particles pass through. The energy released is all the particle binding energy. Trust me -- you would not want to fly a shuttle or any other space craft through it.
Black holes are spinning on an axis quite fast. This warps space-time. The jets coming out of a black hole must be traveling unbelieviably fast (faster than speed of light 186,000 mi/s).
Did those jets just escape a black hole?
Or is it that the spinning of the black hole has warped Space-Time that gravity is weaker?
How fast are the jets or what is the gravity like there?
But going light speed would increase your mass which would crush yourself. Hibbs, a possible particle that is gravity, could control this effect.
Also when going through a black hole the gravitional effect would crush you. Due to its gravitional pull which is the speed of light, things which go into a black hole. usually get expelled out through the jets of it.
do objects pulled into a black hole become part of the black hole
All the mass of a black hole is concentrated at the event horizon held in balance by what science currently calls dark energy. What is calld a singularity is no more an "object" than the center of a balloon is and object.
"In its simplest sense, a black hole is an area of space wherein there is no way for an object to escape its gravitational pull." Wrong. This is in special relativity. In general relativity, a BH is a region where the geometry of space is so distorted that it takes forever to reach the surface. A BH in GR has no inside, as it takes forever to reach the surface. Do not try to visualize the strange geometry. Remember G=T is the equation of GR.
How would it feel like to approach a BH? The same feeling one gets when one dies. Time stops for the dying person, for the dead cannot communicate with the living. Likewise, as one approaches a BH, the person loses all ability to communicate with the rest of the universe.
One cannot go back into time. If we can go into the past, then the past did not pass. Going faster than light means going back into time. I am surprised at the low level of physics on this forum!
Time on earth is slower than time on a satellite. Imagine the mass of the earth increased to the point where the time on earth slows to zero. This means that it would take forever to fall to the surface. This is a black hole, which is a concept in general relativity (gravitation = stress-energy). Forget the inside. In special relativity, where time does not change due to mass, we note that the escape velocity increases with mass, and for a large enough mass the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.
A black hole is a star that collapses into the point of zero and its space time curvature is infinite And Its density. A white hole on the other hand is the time Opposite of a black hole instead of inhaling matter it expels it. Some say when you enter a black hole you come out through a white hole. But white holes are only possible in equations. And entering a black hole Will end up in doom.
My theory is that a black hole is similar to a neutron star. In fact, I think it is a star with such gravity. I'd also like to learn more about its opposite "white hole" which is supposed to expel matter.
Perhaps if a shuttle could do that it would pass straight through but instead everything is pulled to the center of the black hole and crushed from the pull never to escape.
Yeah but the schwarzchild radius is quite large (Although it depends on the size of the black hole)
so if you get caught in, your stuck forever. Game Over. Death is sure.
External observers note that it takes forever for an object to enter a BH. In science, we require that all events have to be observable in principle. Since it is impossible to observe the falling into a black hole, this does not happen. The solution of GR saying that this does happen is false, due to the singularity at the center.
If just under the right circumstances, a shuttle was made faster than light and very strong to withhold that immense gravitational pull, it should go right through the "Black hole" which in fact isn't just a star that has collapsed on it self, if you actually look on images you can see that the hole has swirls around it and also gets thinner and thinner all the way through making the gravity more pulling, if you notice all a black hole is, is just part of the solar system that has been compressed on itself so in theory it should just lead through and out into another part of the galaxy.
Post your comments