Talk:Black hole

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black hole article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well.

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Standard Model

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)[reply]

Black hole

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A "Thing"?

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)[reply]

"Simple != stupid"

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)[reply]

ATTENTION

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)[reply]

Introduction: a sentence is missing

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)[reply]

Working towards GA

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)[reply]

Made an attempt to simplify and clarify.Peterdownunder (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Related pages" (when blue links)