singularity

If you fill the inquiring mind with stuff about astronomy you should at least say that what you are saying is theory that is currently believed by most astronomers and only theory. You don't know any more about how stars function than he, she, I or they do. And todays true theories are tomorrows jokes.

Quantum_Gravity

Please accept my profoundest apologies - Jim is absolutely right - and if you put "According to current theory" at the start of every other sentence you'll probably also guarantee yourself an extra couple of marks! Another good approach is to use the word "allegedly" - this gets you out of a lot of potential trouble as well, especially later in life if someone's thinking of suing you.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Blackholes: If the speed at eventhorizon would be above a lightyear then what decides the direction or point of the black hole?
I think the direction is generally a funnel like shape that would spin, If the particles in the blackhole are Going fast enough would they evently to be so tightly woond towards its center. Knowing that i think that evently it will spin itself out with escaping mass on sides(losing density) and i also think the center would feel if a ship or human would be in there that in would bend to the inside and diverge in which would warp a space material smaller.

balls and genuis equals success

Thank you atko and Jim for that help i just checked the second page as of 10/23/02 and Where quantum gravity com into play since we are the gravity subject.
Question: How would gravity affect a blackhole or would would the blackhole make its own gravity?

The intuitive mind

Black holes - very theoretical. I don't personally believe in them, but current theory has them generating enormous gravitational fields. In theory (and I'm not being funny, this is right out at the edge), you can calculate the gravitational field of the black hole according to the mass/gravity properties of the object, say a star, which has collapsed to form it. Black holes are a construct of General Relativity, which doesn't entertain the concept of gravitons (GR is at odds with all quantum models), so they are described in terms of "curved space", I'm guessing you're familiar with the rubber sheet analogy.

This way, GR doesn't have to deal with the problem of gravitons "escaping" from the hole (which is actually a back-to-front view of the mechanics of gravitons in the pushing gravity model); gravity is just a property of curved space. Nice side-step.

In graviton models there are no black holes; just very dense objects, say, like neutron stars.

I'm jumping late into this one, so my two cents will be short

TVF, you have stated gravitational shielding hides the real mass of an object. As far as questions of the density of materials hold, we must redefine our concept of density. For a small object like a penny, measuring the pull of gravity (weight~mass) and its volume is simple, or is it? Does a penny hold more mass than we detect? Does the condensed nuclei of more massive elements like copper/zinc hide mass? Does the hiding of mass increase as atomic mass increases? Remember the number of nuclear particles is determined by careful weight comparisons with "known" samples. We still cannot actually count the number of particles or definately determine the mass of any individual particle. I'm sure I am now being cursed by the ghost of Robert Millikan. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> mv

Mark Vitrone