> > >spike: If I understand it correctly, the larger a black hole, the harder it
> is to
> > >observe. Perhaps Amara Graps can help us?
> >Amara Graps wrote:
> > ...most terrific quadruped... [e^2 cummings riff snipped]...swoons into
> billiardBalls!
>
> Robert M. Owen: Splendid! ... what prompted you to reply thus?
I was sooo way off. My notion of smaller black holes radiating more
than large ones only applies in the case where there is absence of dust
and matter falling into the black holes, unlikely in the relatively in the
dusty, gassy, mattery environment of a galaxy. The amount of
radiation due to particle-antiparticle pairs being formed at the
event horizon is nothing compared to the huge amounts of energy
released from dust and stuff falling into the black hole from the
accretion disc. I needed to reread and rethink Hawkings Brief
History of Time. Sorry about the noise. {8-] spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:18 MDT