Serious Topic - Not for the faint of heart

I was reading up on what Erasmus posted in another thread regarding gravity, where he mentioned the Schwazchild Radius.

Now, I perfectly understand what that is and how it operates, and what it means to a black hole.

After looking up some information, I stumbled across this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity This page isn't what I am curious about, but it lead me to this one instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity

Now, here's what I am curious about, and am hoping that someone can shed some light on this.

As the article states, a naked singularity is a singularity with no event horizon covering it. This theoretically allows it to be directly observable and may even emit light instead of attract light. (Dunno how that's even possible, always thought that as the density of matter increases [thus increasing it's gravitational mass] it's gravitational field increases)

However, the article seems to be implying that the cosmological censorship hypothesis doesn't hold, and that these naked singularities can exist. However, as you read the article, it tells you that even though they are predicted, and theoretically possible, they would break down the laws of physics completely. They would cause chaos in the cosmological scale, and possibly even cause normally impossible events to become possible at random (if you've seen Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, think Infinite Improbability Drive).

Now without a working quantum gravity model/theory, how is it even possible for these objects to be predicted? I'm completely confused, because it seems like the article is contradicting itself.

What, no takers?

/bump

I don't think anyone really understands what you're talking about.  After all, this forum is about people who think the Earth is flat.  Do you really think they're smart enough to understand this?

I don't think anyone really understands what you're talking about.  After all, this forum is about people who think the Earth is flat.  Do you really think they're smart enough to understand this?

Hey.  Hey.  Guess what?  You're a fucker.



Moving on to more pressing matters: Hara Taiki, I must first say that it has been a while since I've read up on this, but, last time I knew, the cosmic censorship hypothesis holds.  However, after clicking some links in the article you presented, I have read that computer simulations have come up with situations in which it does not - whether or not such events happen in real life is a whole other story.  A singularity (point of infinite density and, therefore, infinite gravity) should have an event horizon (where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light) because it makes sense that way - how can an object of infinite density not have an event horizon?

A rotating black hole is very different from a Schwarzschild black hole in that the spin of the black hole will cause the creation of two event horizons, an inner one and an outer one. As the spin increases, the inner event horizon moves outward, and the outer one moves inward. If the spin is great enough, the two will eventually merge and shrink towards the singularity. With no event horizons to hide it from the rest of the universe, the black hole ceases to be a black hole and will instead be a naked singularity.

It's been too long since I've read up on black holes - I'll look back into them and hopefully come across the answer.

The Event Horizon makes me aroused.

Please note:

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."

Please note:

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."

Also note:  the gender of Vauxhall has been disputed as well.