what happens at the north , happens at the south poles of a mass

look

the way I'm thinking is this ;

inorder for gravity to collapse a mass into a black-hole is to do with three dimensional physical dynamics

so that the collapse happens at both poles of the mass

hence the production of two event horizons

it only makes sense , because both poles have an equal amount of gravity

if this is NOT happening , that a black-hole is a single polar phenonom then a black-hole , if it does exist , is because of a completely different mechanism , of which we fully don't understand

The poles have nothing to do with it.

I already told you. The event horizon surrounds the Black Hole.
All the way around.

I'm not sure why you think there would be "two event horizons" - a event horizon is not a physical inity it's just where the escape velocity is greater than c...

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

define " all the way around "

Imagine what you were trying to describe.

That would require light to escape in some portions and not others.

North, do you view the event horizon like a ring- similar to the rings around Saturn?
If so, you are suffering a misconception.

The event horizon would surround the black hole. It wouldn't matter from which angle you looked at it.

Like a circle... (right now I'm learning Inventor in school - in which there would be no "loops" to close) so this "event horizon" would be like a 3-d circle or spherical "shape" that surrounds the black hole, but again it's not a physical object, just a term.

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

Halo might be a good example eh?

Halo? Please explain

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

The video game of course!
C'mon! Keep up with me here.

Yeah, the original star was a three dimensional object, so to me it makes sense to me that the event horizon would be spherical as well. The common artistic impression of a 2D wire grid deforming in 3D is an artistic representation to help us understand a difficult subject to imagine. That doesn't mean it reflects reality per say.

__________________

so there are two event-horizions then ?

That what I thought at first, but I wasn't sure of the relation...

Personally, I don't really like Halo, I perfer Call of Duty IV

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

Hmmmm
Come to think of it, you're right.

Call of Duty IV certainly is a much better analogy for an event horizon than Halo is.
It's almost as good as Risk™.

And I would like to think that Risk is almost as good as Axis & Allies the board game

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

whatever

who cares

Well, you do for one.
You started the thread.

from a game point a view ?

hardly

If you steered your starship towards a Sun, would you crash into it only if you hit it at one of its poles?


If that Sun had become a black hole first, would you only be captured by that black hole if you approached towards one of its poles?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

no


yes

No.
Yes.

The gravity of a black hole is the same as the original star.
The term 'black hole' is very misleading. It implies a deformation of a 2D plane when in fact it's 3D. (actually 4D, because time gets screwy too around a black hole) A 3d deformation in space time. Stop taking the rubber sheet literally.

__________________

really

I play neither game

The collapse is All Over the Star. Everywhere.
The effect is Everywhere on the star.
What do you mean by more evident?
What does this have to do with the Event Horizon?

Do you always just Make Stuff up?
Is that easier than actually, you know, learning what you're talking about?
No wonder you don't understand black holes.

gravity is based on attraction

and the attraction by gravity and therefore the collapse of gravity by a mass should also be three dimensional

so wherever this black-hole event horizion resides , so there should be at the opposite end

obivously

if the event horizion of a black-hole is singular , at only one point on the sphere of the mass , then we don't fully understand why ?

for this implies an inbalance of gravity on the mass

Yeah.
Obviously huh? This sums up all your misconceptions and 'resistant to education' attitudes you routinely express.

Incidentally, you misspelled it.

Even though I don't believe in the event horizon, I'll defend the idea with my understanding of how an event horizon black hole forms: it starts at the limit of having mass=zero and radius=0 and grows inside a dying star. From that point on, all the matter in the star just falls towards the event horizon, and the event horizon expands, until the whole of the ex-star's matter is falling towards the event horizon.

Maybe that helps....

Because it's not at one point on a sphere. It is the sphere.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

but does the event horizion start from a single point , on the mass ?

if so why there at this point ?

What point? Are you thinking of some kind of hole at a particular spot on a sphere?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser