Talk:Black hole
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black hole article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily article pageviews |
|
Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.
|
|
Standard Model change
I think, the phrase "...Standard Model..." in the description should be replaced. Standard Model refers to a particular theory that can not explain gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton). That is why, it is misleading to imply that the observed objects can be explained within the understanding of the Standard Model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.65.99 (talk • contribs)
- Agree, and fixed. In future you are welcome to make such changes yourself. Giggy (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Black hole change
They decided it was a black hole with a strong gravitational force. This does mean that the origin of such a strong force can not be something different than a gravitational one.
According to that last bit, the fact that they decided was enough to prove the origin. What? — This unsigned comment was added by 146.6.82.219 (talk • changes).
Black Holes have been photgraphed change
The caption in the picture that states black-holes have never been photographed is wrong. They have photographed from very long distances. (While it may be difficult to obtain a photo of a black-hole to use legally on this page; they have still been photographed by NASA and others.) Sometimes it may be difficult to tell from a photo that it is a black-hole, because black-holes contain no light... but they have been photographed. Lauryn Ashby (d) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Black holes have not been photographed (but pictures can be helpful, in regard to discussing in what direction from Earth - in which Black hole this-or-that, seems to be located).--Paradox, one might say.--What user:Lauryn Ashby wrote above, is sort-of in the ballpark (which has many positives).--For the article, we should have good sources; Thereafter, we can deal with if the text is in-line with the source. 2001:2020:345:BEA6:F5DC:E82E:6FC3:21B (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
A "Thing"? change
A black hole is a "Thing" in the universe? that's quite funny, isn't there a better way to describe it?
::Please sign!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdonald-ross (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
"Simple != stupid" change
Just noticed this article today as it popped up on recent changes. What immediately caught my eye was the sentence "a black hole is a thing". I don't have time to work on it anymore tonight, but suggest that we totally re-write this article. Yes, black holes are sometimes difficult subjects to discuss, but we can do so in a simple, yet informative matter. Any help will be appreciated. Lauryn Ashby (d) 21:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
ATTENTION change
If the original star was large enough the densely packed ball is called a singularity, the core of a black hole, but if it was not it would become either a neutron star or a dwarf star. What kind of sentence is that? It has obvious grammer mistakes. Could someone correct this? Since this is the Simple English version of wikipedia for new learners.
::Please sign!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdonald-ross (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Introduction: a sentence is missing change
Right now the first sentence of the article reads:
« A black hole is a region of space from which nothing, including the general theory of relativity, it is the result of the curving of spacetime caused by a huge mass. »
Look at the emphasis: this sentence makes no sense, something is missing.
::Please sign!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdonald-ross (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Working towards GA change
This statement from the history section needs some work done on it so that is makes sense: "The Schwarzschild radius is the size of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole". I am not sure what it is telling me. Peterdownunder (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Made an attempt to simplify and clarify.Peterdownunder (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)