Scientists have found new evidence that black holes are performing the disappearing acts for which they are known.

A team from MIT and Harvard has found that a certain type of X-ray explosion common on neutron stars is never seen around their black hole cousins, as if the gas that fuels these explosions has vanished into a void.

This is strong evidence, the team said, for the existence of a theoretical border around a black hole called an event horizon, a point from beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060111074825.htm

Don't black holes steadily fire a small numbers of atoms out at opposing poles?

This is strong evidence, the team said, for the existence of a theoretical border around a black hole called an event horizon, a point from beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

What about Hawking Radiation?

Blacknad.

That originates just outside the event horizon, due to quantum fluctuations.

Not as far as I am aware.

Rob asks:
"Don't black holes steadily fire a small numbers of atoms out at opposing poles?"

Never seen evidence of this in anything I've read.

Man! Either TV is completely useless, or you are reading outdated books. I distinctly remember hearing that information on more than one occasion on Discovery Science. Hold on, I'm reserching, I may find you a link...

Can't hold my breath that long.

Nothing I can do, sorry. Urm, they said for every x amount of atoms they take in a few get shot out at high speeds at both poles. The rest is very hazy because I'm talking from old memories. They compared black holes to neutron stars, you know how they shoot plasma from two poles, they said black holes do this aswell but not as much. I may be talking absolute rubbish. Just wait for the link. One thing I am absolutely sure I heared; Black holes 'evaporate' over time, a very small amount of paricles is constantly escaping from the poles of the black hole where (memory degenerates). This was on TV for people with an average education in science so they didn't go into much detail anyway. Urm...they mentioed X-rays.

Well if they do, you can be sure it is from outside the event horizon.

Do black holes spin on their axis?

Good Question.

Assuming the star from which they formed was rotating then yes.

And hey! Look! Matter being ejected at the poles...



Look Here

Nice artist's drawing but it has nothing to do with: "Don't black holes steadily fire a small numbers of atoms out at opposing poles?"

We can discuss Hawking radiation.
or
We can discuss the funneling of incoming matter into jets as depicted above.
But none will corresond with "small numbers of atoms."

Ahh! Jeez!
Give the guy a break.
I jus know ya got it in ya heart DA!!!

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99185.htm

Is this true? Does no-one know why planets spin on their axis?

Reread the response you linked in. The matter from which planets form spins, the space around stars is dragged by gravity and spins, the entire universe seemingly contains nothing that does not spin.

The answer was good but misleading in that we've a very good idea of why planets spin ... we've just not refined which cause(s) among many.

Just a thought on the matter. Maybe every object on earth wants to ideally orbit the centre of the earth, like the moon and earth are in a spin. I find in hard to accept it's from the original spin of it's formation. If that was true all movement of planets would be from the initial movement of the big bang and not be governed by gravity.

What about the matter at the VERY centre? Is that spinning on it's axis? -More proof for my theory of infinite divisibility.

Dogrock ... do us all a favour. Fill your sink with water. Then pull the plug. Which part of what you observe don't you understand?

I'm suggesting that the rotation of the dust, is explained by gravity, that formed the planets, and gravity continues to keep them spinning. What was suggested was that they have continued spinning because of the initial momentum when forming.

Nothing need keep anything spinning. A body in motion remains in motion ....

If they were initially in motion some force would have need to stop them from spinning. Got one in mind?

yes, if all the activity on earth didn't also obey the rotational forces of gravity then they might have slowed it down. A volcano can produce some little power, but if every leaf or apple that fell resisted the orbital force then why not.

"but if every leaf or apple that fell resisted the orbital force then why not."

Are you seriously proposing that somehow a leaves falling from trees might have stopped the earth from spinning?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Please tell me I misunderstood.

Use your imagination. Four billion years of falls of everything, twice a day oceans, iceblocks, rocks, the volcanity activity that takes place inside the earth and plates moving. If they didn't also contribute to spin of the earth it might have slowed it down. A rock falls, it either contributes to the spin or gets dragged along. If it gets dragged along it slows the rotation. To contribute fully it must have a momentum of it's own. All objects on earth would orbit the centre of the earth if the path was clear to do so, it seems to me that they must therefore contribute to the spin.

[Edited]

oops... gotta check how many pages there are in a thread before posting lol...

Dogrock ... there are disciplines usually referred to as math and physics. You might want to study them at a level at least equal to that taught in middle school.

Your statement: "A rock falls, it either contributes to the spin or gets dragged along." is laughable.

And on your way to enlightenment you might want to watch an ice skater during the Winter Olympics.