Uh...there can't be a black hole on Earth - The Black Hole (2006) Discussion

[–] NKWulf 19 years ago

I

T

I

S

A

M

O

V

I

E

The idea is no worse then <insert any movie here>

reply

[–] Squishy-12 19 years ago

"It's just a movie" is no excuse whatsoever for complete nonsense. If it were, the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park could have been explained as the result of pushing turkey eggs and radiation up a monkey's butt, and the war in X-Men 3 could've been attributed to Professor Xavier eating bad guacamole. "It doesn't have to make sense! It's just a movie!!!"

Hollywood will spend huge amounts of money on "technical advisors," then fart out something like Turbulence (in which a passenger jet flies upside-down and smashes its wingtips and landing gear into billboards and vehicles without even minor damage)--or blow a healthy chunk of bduget on recognized screenwriters who then punch out Spider-Man 2 (in which our hero finds out the villain's hideout by asking someone who should have absolutely NO IDEA where it is).

Ghost stories and magic fantasies are fine, but stupidity passing for logic in movies just helps make stupider audiences, and Lord knows we have enough idiots already. Stop making excuses and start demanding better.

reply

[–] rmcranaman 18 years ago

Exactly, it is just a movie.

You think the storyline is flawed? How about The Core, yeah, the Earth's core is going to stop spinning and can only be started by an explosion.

And I've heard there's some film coming out about re-igniting the Sun!

Again, just a movie, something called Science Fiction, not fact!

reply

[–] TheSolarSailor 18 years ago

Science fiction only works when the characters can convince you that something is plausible, even though we know in reality it is not. Far too many bad film simply throw out ideas and expect the audience to take it at face value...no effort. Way too many today don't bother to have standards, feeling free to just accept any kind of garbage that is thrown at them. Usually, these folks like rmcranaman say "it's just a movie" whenever someone points out a reason for it being bad. They don't care, for they have no standards. These people are responsible for the extreme lack of quality we get today. And by the way, The Core was awful, so what exactly is your point?

* * * *

OK, so what's the speed of dark?

reply

[–] jfuex 17 years ago

I agree. I want at least an attempt to make it sound plausible. Otherwise you spend the whole movie nitpicking in in my mind. For example the movie Event Horizon dealt with similar themes and was as much fiction as this one, but the science at least sounded remotely plausible.

It seemed like the people who made this movie don't even understand what a black hole is? I mean, how the heck do they even posit that a particle accelerator could form a black hole unless they somehow loaded it with enough particles to comprise about 10,000x the amount available on earth. Don't they understand the simplest concept that a black hole is simply the effects of a VERY weak force (gravity) magnified by an immense amount of matter? It is the equivalent of saying that the midwest was being flooded by a single drop of water. I just makes no darn sense.

I only watched a few minutes of the movie until I heard them talking about "Closing" a black hole. To extend my analagy, that is like the idea of closing water to make it not wet. It doesn't make sense even if you suspend disbeleif if you even have a vague notion of what a black hole is.

reply

[–] electrictroy 17 years ago

>>>Science Fiction, not fact!<<<

The key word there is "science" i.e. based upon reality. It's it's not based upon reality, then it's no longer science fiction. It becomes <b>fantasy</b> fiction.

So basically:

This movie should be labeled "fantasy".

reply

[–] badboy1993 17 years ago

[Q]Re: Uh...there can't be a black hole on Earth
by - electrictroy on Fri Aug 31 2007 14:18:19 >>>Science Fiction, not fact!<<<

The key word there is "science" i.e. based upon reality. It's it's not based upon reality, then it's no longer science fiction. It becomes <b>fantasy</b> fiction.

So basically:

This movie should be labeled "fantasy".[UQ]

What i have to say about this... Technically I guess your right but logic sense no.
Besides this movie is more science related stuff and when you say fantasy that applies more to Micky Mouse and Stuff. I may not be the smartest but think twice before you criticize.

I'm not going to reply to anymore because there is to many and some of you just need to Google stuff while others think its a know it all computation.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mansor586 18 years ago

Nice. I laughed a little to hard when I saw your comment to that dork.

reply

[–] andym1138 19 years ago

I'm in this movie. My pals and I are all extras in one of the crowd scenes. It's going to be terrible.

reply

[–] milton-stanley 19 years ago

ergosphere?

reply

[–] iCutie 19 years ago

Which crowd scene were you in? It may have ended up on the cutting room floor.

reply

[–] SammerAsker 18 years ago

Science fiction , are 2 words
for a movie to be a science fiction
it has to be fictional yes
it doesn't need to be 100% scientifically correct BUT...
it has to be scientifically convincing
and re-igniting the sun , is " even only as an ida not a movie " convincing even if its scientifically not true or possible

But Black Hole on earth WTF
Do you even know what black hole is , the event horizon of black hole alone would destroy earth

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hurricane_floyd 19 years ago

Interstingly too, your statement is meaningless because the sun does not have enough mass to become a "black hole".

if enough mass could somehow be suddenly transposed to the sun to make it collapse then NO the Earth would not remain in orbit, it would indeed be drawn suddenly towards the larger mass.

reply

[–] pvt1863 19 years ago

Actually that is not true.

A black hole does not have to be a massive body. In theory, a black hole could form and have very little mass (this would be the case if one were created in an experiment). The low mass would mean that it would have an event horizon with a very small radius.

It is theoretically possible that, should a black hole be made in an experiment on Earth, it could be contained until it decayed. If it had a magnetic charge, it could be suspended in a vacuum by a magnetic field (through the same process that is used to suspend and store other products of atomic tests like anti-protons).

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timgdx 19 years ago

Thank God for particle physicists.

reply

[–] Dr_Maybe 19 years ago

I can't remember who found out or how, or even if I read it or saw it. Something tells me not to look up anything on the internet with the discription "hole" in it, so you're on your own. Mass of the galaxies being proportional to mass of blackhole. Wish I could remember more. Before seeing that, I couldn't give a rat's ass about blackholes. Now I know useless junk like "accretion disk" and stuff about gravity and unified theory. Still can't bring myself to watch the movie though. If you want to know the most correct theory of how time works, look up "My Pretty Pony" by Steven King. He has it all over Einstein on that one.

reply

[–] Dr_Maybe 19 years ago

Come to think of it Steven King had a wormhole travel type of story called "The Jaunt". Maybe he's right about that one too. Ah crap, damned eyeballs on my hands again!

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kinoshnik55 19 years ago

Actually the BBC reported some time ago that scientists at the CERN linear accelerator in Switzerland had created something with all the properties of a black hole. The object collapsed on itself within seconds, but the observations gathered during that time showed properties exhibited only by black holes.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MarshallStax 19 years ago

QUOTE:

In this case, the word "confirm" means "return a bunch of numbers that appear to support a theory that can't be proven outside of a computer model".

Ummm... nothing can be proven objectively as each of us lives in an utterly subjective universe. If we can't all agree that movies directed by Quentin Tarantino are crap, then how are we supposed to all agree on big stuff like the nature of reality or the point of existence or whether it looks like rain tomorrow or any of that business?

Peronsally, I'll put my faith in a bunch of numbers over a fellow in black with a white collar (or a turban or a red dot on his forehead, for that matter) any day of the week.

reply

[–] antigraviton 18 years ago

I appreciate the use of a source, as well as the point it helps you make.

However, pasting the article into the forum violates imdb Terms and Conditions 2.c (copyright). Please revise the post to link to the story instead.

G-

==

*Clean* food, please.

reply

[–] badboy1993 17 years ago

[Q]Re: Uh...there can't be a black hole on Earth
by - pvt1863 on Sat Jun 10 2006 10:10:49 Actually that is not true.

A black hole does not have to be a massive body. In theory, a black hole could form and have very little mass (this would be the case if one were created in an experiment). The low mass would mean that it would have an event horizon with a very small radius.

It is theoretically possible that, should a black hole be made in an experiment on Earth, it could be contained until it decayed. If it had a magnetic charge, it could be suspended in a vacuum by a magnetic field (through the same process that is used to suspend and store other products of atomic tests like anti-protons).[UQ]

What i have to say about this is you people just got pwned....

reply

[–] trancejeremy 19 years ago

Wrong! Black Holes can be any size. A man made one would be quite small.

There are reasons the science in this movie is wrong (nor do Kristy Swanson or Judd Nelson make believable scientists), but that isn't one of them.

reply

[–] hurricane_floyd 19 years ago

Actually small black holes could only form in the early moments of the universe, when matter density was almost infinite, after many billions of years it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anything smaller than a supergiant star to implode into a singularity.

reply

[–] t-a-walker 19 years ago

Um, for one thing, the universe is not 20 billion years old yet, by virtually any test run.

Second, it is theoretically possible to create a black hole in a particle accelerator, or through cosmic rays hitting out atmosphere. Such a black hole would almost certainly decay in nanoseconds though. If it survived, it would grow at such a slow rate as to not be a threat for some time. A black hole does not magically develop higher gravity than the mass it contains. So if a black hole is created through the collision of two particles, it would only initially contain the mass of those two particles, and therefore the (extremely weak) gravity of those two particles. You have to remember that gravity is an incredibly weak force. A simple one gram magnet can easily overcome the gravitational force of the entire planet Earth.

The movie is not terribly realistic, but I would classify the movie as science fantasy versus science fiction. There is no law that says that a science fiction movie has to use "good" science. Indeed, a lot of beloved science fiction movies use poor science fiction that most people don't give a second thought to, such as there being sound in outer space or spaceships being able to bank or turn like airplanes.

reply

[–] hurricane_floyd 19 years ago

I have another one for you, let's say that by some inexplicable method small black holes could form/be created.

What about "Hawking Radiation"?
Small black holes are going to evaporate VERY quickly, in fact if you made one in a lab you may never know it was there before it radiates all its energy/mass and vanishes.

A black hole the size mass of our sun would probably only last a few hours.

reply

[–] Vagary 19 years ago

Just because they call a movie "Black Hole" doesn't mean there was one. (Just like it really wasnt Armageddon in "Armageddon". In the film, they simply called it that for lack of a better term. The term black hole is also descriptive - no light escapes it - and throughout the movie, it was shown as having light emanating from it. This coupled with the fact that an energy consuming alien emerged from it pretty much solidifies that it was not a black hole. In fact, Judd Nelson's character actually theorized that it was the scientists tests that weakened some time/space/gravity fields to allow the alien to punch through to our system. Yet another reason to not call it a black hole.

So yes, it's not a black hole, just a movie with a descriptive name. And as far as straight to video movies go - quite enjoyable.

Side note: Anyone else think Kristy Swanson looked cuter than ever?

And who actually sits through a movie they dislike so much they give it a "1"? And then take more time out of their lives to look it up on IMDb and rate it? Nothing better to do with your time???

reply

[–] sganimefan 19 years ago

Right on Vagary i'am New to the boards on this site an all and I'am here to say
I can't agree with you more that's just like another movie I saw recently 10.5 apocalypse

that aired on tv last month and i tell you a-lot of peole have been doing the same kinds of things to it saying that it's the worst film ever and like you said before a-lot of them are are putting way to much meaning into a purely descriptive name I mean geez when are people going to start waking up and seeing that more and to the point like you said who would wast the time to post remarks about a film they thought was so terrible to watch anyhow cause if it where me in that case I wouldn't even wast my time on a film i hated that much
i just don't get it eather but I do agree with your way of thinking
on this thats fo sure
and by the way
to the world at large for the record and PLEAS READ MY WORDS
films Like 10.5 apocalypse and black hole are works of complete
SCIENCE-FICTION NOT PURE or REAL SCIENCE it is a work of fiction
there for not real people get it?

reply

[–] black_wolf_1970 19 years ago

The problem with our sun turing into a black hole is that it would go through other stages first. Namley a red or blue giant in either case the planent ourt to neptune would be evaporated. Also A black hole could form on earth as a simple fact of nature, and many probuly have over the millions of years. Black hole are also not readly visible to the human eye, unlike the 1979 disney movie they are not visible space whirlpools. Mostly the only wahy to tell if a black hole is arround is the effect it has on gravity.

Info from NASA,Sagan and Hakins easily found on the net or god forbid BOOKS if people still know what they are.

"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

reply

[–] johnnykilmore 19 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA lmao u ppl r so hilarious, rantin on an on about black holes and how u think they behave. by the way the havent even been proven to exist yet, still theory. u r all of below avg int, must b americans. enjoy ur argument with ur made up math and physics that u know nothing about

reply

[–] black_wolf_1970 19 years ago

Well well some one who does not read books I take it. As for proof the hubble telescope detected a "GRAVITIONAL ANNOMIALY" a few years ago. a black spot in the blackness of space that had a gravtational effect on every thing arround it, light waves included. Check the news at NASA.

"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

reply

[–] matramartin238 19 years ago

Question: how old is the universe?

reply

[–] black_wolf_1970 19 years ago

Well look at this way, Dino's died out 65 million years ago, they were arround for a 100 million yeras before that, Our star the sun is considered a new born at at least 50 billion years. To put simply, older than can readly be grasped and it is still under debate oldest date I've heard so far, close to a 5 gogoplexis ( that would be a 6 foot number 1 followed by enough 6 foot zeros to circle the earth 100 million times at 6 inches thick. EACH)
"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

reply

[–] matramartin238 19 years ago

Well, I have a theory of my own that doesn't take into account too much scientific information. I say the universe, though not in its current form, has been around forever. Suppose it hasn't, and it has a definite time of "birth": that means that before this "birth" there was nothing, and suddenly the universe appeared out of nothing. In our day, at least, this isn't possible, and it's only natural to think that it wasn't possible back then, at the so called birth, either. So, the universe must have been around forever. I know, there are a few dubious ifs in my would-be theory, but I'd really like to hear your theories as well.

reply

[–] black_wolf_1970 19 years ago

One theroy I have heard is that the "birth" of the universe was just that, our universe being born from another, like matter and anti matter, or a alternate realty universe created at a vital point from the prime universe. Another is that the universe it self is in fact a living being, the galaxies, stars, palnets etc. are all parts or a larger being. My self I kind of feel that maybe parts of both theories are right. We may never find out how our univers was created because that fact can't be found in our universe.
"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

reply

[–] TheGhozt 19 years ago

The universe may have been around for ever, but not the matter. It must origin from somewhere, and then have been scatterd. As predicted, it will probably go back to it's origin too.

reply

[–] simmonds81 19 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA lmao u ppl r so hilarious, rantin on an on about black holes and how u think they behave. by the way the havent even been proven to exist yet, still theory. u r all of below avg int, must b americans. enjoy ur argument with ur made up math and physics that u know nothing about

So how do you explain binary star systems containing only one visible body? My first degree was in Physics and my dissertation on the evolution of massive and super-massive black holes so yes I do know what I'm talking about.

Before commenting on peoples intelligence please learn how to write correctly.

reply

[–] udznwplxbkpa 19 years ago

You know how little that means coming from a person who says
"lmao u ppl r" and
"u r all of below avt int, must b"

Learn to speak proper English before trying to insult somebody please.

reply

[–] animefreak4ever 19 years ago

It is a movie, but it was BAD!!! You still have to stay true to the facts SOME BUT NOT COMPLETELY. You can stay true to the facts and then create your own vision of it. a nuke into a black hole. ahh ookay....

I did't like it one bit. the acting wasn't that great to me.

reply

[–] american-dreamer 19 years ago

"What's interesting is that if the sun became a black hole, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. The Earth would keep traveling on the same orbit.

Anyway, I think it's a hilarious idea for a movie."

BAHAHA, you're a dumbass. A black hole is an extreme gravitational pull. It doesn't matter what orbit you're in, it's rips them apart. If you're stupid, don't post ok?

reply

[–] Illusion-XIII 19 years ago

No, sorry, you're the stupid one.
A black hole has an extremely STRONG gravitational pull, yes, but the pull has an extremely short RANGE. The range of the event horizon (the point beyond which light itself is sucked into the black hole) is roughly equivalent to the original diameter of the star. Beyond that, the gravitational effects would be no different than that of the original star, assuming the mass itself hasn't changed.
Now, of course, all of this is specious because the Sun doesn't have enough mass to form a black hole. If it did, the Earth would not be in this position, and certainly couldn't support life. However, talkingtotherain's statement is based on the observation that when a star collapses into a Black Hole, objects outside of the original diameter of the star remain in their current orbits. So theoretically, if the Sun had the ability to collapse in the same fashion, the event horizon would be just as small, proportionately, and therefore the Earth would remain in its orbit. It's all in the math.
Never call anyone stupid unless you have the education to back it up.

reply

[–] Asteri-Atypical 19 years ago

Beyond that, the gravitational effects would be no different than that of the original star

Actually quite a bit smaller, since if the same mass were already in the star then that would mean the surface of the star would already be an event horizon.

The gravitational pull of a black hole isn't any different from any other gravitational pull; it simply comes from a more compact source. Things only start to get strange beyond the event horizon. The gravity is so strange not because the gravity is different but because you're able to get so close to a POINT where all that force is concentrated, unlike with a star, where once you're INSIDE the star the gravity becomes distributed.

reply

[–] Illusion-XIII 19 years ago

Good point, you're right. The event horizon would have to be smaller than the original diameter.

reply

[–] zalanmeggyesi 18 years ago

The event horizon(or Schwarzschild radius) is only the distance from the singularity at the centre of the black hole at which a photon travelling tangentally at light speed will remain in a stable orbit. This may or may not be equal to the original diameter, though it is likely to be more due to the extreme density. Beyond that, however, gravitational pull decreases as per normal laws, but the density of the black hole means its gravity extends a long way.

If the Sun was to collapse into a black hole, planets up to Mars would probably be drawn in, as well as Jupiter's and Saturn's atmospheres. However, even specialists disagree about the consequences, so speculation by laymen is almost completely pointless...

reply

[–] Illusion-XIII 18 years ago

While you are right that all of this is speculation, there are some physics and mathematics to back these ideas up. And unfortunately, you are very wrong about the diameter of the Event Horizon.

The mathematics in this case are actually pretty simple. The good old "Inverse Square" law says that the gravitational force (no matter how strong) decreases at the inverse of the square of the distance from the center. And that gravitational force is based on the MASS of the object, not its density. Density only comes into play because the denser the object, the closer you can get to its center. So imagine if the Earth's density was increased by shrinking its radius in half. That would mean that the gravitational force at the surface would increase by 4 times. Cut it in half again and you go up to 16 times. Turn the Earth into a black hole (radius=0) and the gravitational force at the surface is equal to infinity (1/0). HOWEVER, that gravitational force would still be subject to the same inverse square law, which means that if you were hovering over Black-hole-earth at a distance equal to the original radius of the Earth, the gravitational force (i.e. your mass) would be exactly equal to the original force.
Therefore, the same rule applies to the Sun. If the radius of the Sun were decreased to the point where it became a Black Hole (assuming that no additional mass was added to the Sun in the process), then the gravitational effects on the planets (again, based on the mass of the Sun, not its density) would not change.
The Event horizon itself is the point at which the gravitational force is strong enough to capture light. Again, while there is some speculation on the exact behavior of Black Holes, there is some pretty simple mathematics for calculating the diameter of the Event Horizon if you know the mass of the singularity. The formula is GM/c^2 (the Gravitational Constant times the mass of the object, divided by the speed of light squared). For an object with the mass of our sun, that diameter comes to approximately 3 kilometers. The Earth, as well as Venus and Mercury, would all be quite safe (with the exception of the high-energy gamma radiation burst that would take place as the Sun collapsed and wipe out all life).

reply

[–] haze-11 18 years ago

NERDS!! ;oP

reply

[–] Illusion-XIII 18 years ago

Wow. You reply to a two-month old post with that?! Dude, look at yourself, you're sitting at a computer reading a forum about a bad sci-fi movie, and actually taking the time to reply to a two-month old post. You just outed yourself, buddy. You're an uber-geek to the infinite power. You put me to shame! Before you go around calling anybody else a nerd, how about GETTING A LIFE!

(Oh, and before you lamely try to imply that I'm just as bad by responding to you: a) the post I'm responding to is only a week old; b) I only bothered coming back to this forum because I got the e-mail notification of your reply; and c) at least my response consists of more than a one word exclamation from a goofy 1984 b-movie.)

reply

[–] DemonGate 18 years ago

I accidentally googled the word a**hole and it made a picture of you guys appear.

"They caught me when I tried to cash the giant cheque!" - John (Let's go to Prison)

reply

[–] Illusion-XIII 18 years ago

That was slightly more clever. Good job. Go buy yourself a cookie.

reply

[–] DemonGate 18 years ago

I rest my case!

"They caught me when I tried to cash the giant cheque!" - John (Let's go to Prison)

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] haze-11 17 years ago

LMAO. dude, take your medicine. didnt you see the smiley? LOL
you proved that nerds dont have a sense of humor :)

and yeah, i know im responding to a 14 month old post now. sue me.

reply

[–] wildfire160 19 years ago

Hummmm not to up to date with your physics are you
if you dont want to read any heavy duty texts on singularities i suggest you read some of Stephen Baxter(doctorate in aeroengineering research) Greg Benfords(professor of physics at the University of California) or Charles Sheffield(mathematician and physicist) their SF books tend to be very accurate and they try hard to explain the science in their books...........

reply