Talk:White hole

Strange edit
For a second time User:Noz92 did a complete replacement of the article, I reverted again for these reason: Pjacobi 15:49, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * old content, includeing referencesm was deleted
 * new content not very layman-friendly
 * it's Schwarzschild, not Swartzchild. If you don't know this, there a some doubts about your qualifications to edit this article

Can somebody who speaks Japanese check the edit by 166.121.37.7. The old link was an actual article while the current one looks like the notice of no article yet. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reason for removing the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' edit
I've noticed a few times on WP that people mention things along the following lines: 'in the science fiction series blah blah blah, ... one character falls into a wormhole and blah blah blah'. It might be OK to mention stuff like that in non-scientific articles, but in the middle of scientific ones is a little out of place. Perhaps a little section on science fiction is appropriate in the scientific article (especially for controversial ideas like wormholes) - something like the article Alcubierre drive (if I remember correctly). Mpatel 08:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bubble universe
the universe should not be called as UNIverse but instead be called MULTIverse. There is NOT only 1 big bang that happen. It is possible that there is a parrallel universe somewhere! another universe made up mostly of anti-matter. Do you know the granfather paradox? Although going back in time does not affect the future, it affects the parrellel universe. So in parallel universe or in other bubble universe, it is possible that whiteholes exist there, instead of blackholes.

if any one got other doubts please post here.


 * Bubble universes have nothing to do with the Grandfather paradox... those are separate "existences" not universes... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.88.132 (talk • contribs).

Supermassive Black Hole abbreviated SBH
Throughout science, there's a move towards uniformly abbreviating supermassive black hole as SBH. 104.190.63.217 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No references in Physical relevance chapter
Where are the sources ?

I'd like to say by the way that black holes don't get formed. They were already there before the supernova. Compression in a supernova for instance is temporary. Temporary compression cannot yield a stable black hole, it's like thinking that after a nuclear explosion, is found a nuclear reactor. It's the same absurdity who claims that each supernova creates a black hole.

As references for my own remark, you can read : The first published model https://hal.science/hal-01673630v4 A description of black hole eruptions in http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/4/4/index.html For a more advanced description with more proof http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/9/1/5/index.html The "Big Bang" black hole https://journals.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/AIVP/article/view/15578

2A01:CB1D:89:B500:8E3F:3211:538:DEBF (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way in the last peer reviewed article on the "Big Bang", I mention a white hole case, on Jupiter's surface.
 * 2A01:CB1D:89:B500:8E3F:3211:538:DEBF (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)