What would happen if two gravitational singularities meet

If two black holes are in a reasonable distance from eachover in spae and exert the same force and energy, what would happen? I think maybe these two unstopable force can either collapse on eachover or cancel their effects out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would they "cancel out"?
What do you mean by "collapse"?
What's a "reasonable distance"?
If they're in each other's gravitational influence (and there's nothing else acting on them) then they'll move toward each other and merge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two black holes meeting would end up as one bigger black hole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They wouldn't just get fresh with each other and have baby black holes then?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They might push each other as if they were magnets. So they can sail through the vacuum space without hitting each other.

 

The OP did state "black holes".
Black holes aren't (and can't be) magnets, they only have mass, charge and angular momentum.

 

I did not say they are magnets, I said "as if they were" magnets. You say they have mass, and charge, so what is the charge? Positive or Negative? If not, it is a gravitational charge and it must be pulling. But what do we really know about black holes, not so many things. We can just speculate anything and I speculate that they push each other.

 

Electrical charge.
Gravitational charge?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope, you can't "speculate anything", any speculation must be consistent with known physics and observations.
A reasonable start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

Your Wikipedia says this:

"In general relativity, a black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, including light, can escape its pull."

This is another passage from your Wikipedia:

"The gravitational and electric fields of the black hole give very little information about what went in."

But it does not say anything about what two black holes behaves to each other. I think you should read it again...

 

I didn't read it at all.
I gave YOU that link as a starter.
Look for "properties": you should find mass, charge and angular momentum (spin) listed as the ONLY properties a black hole may possess.
Since they both have mass (extremely so), and therefore a large gravitational pull (which works in only one direction - towards the centre), then there is no possibility of them repelling each other.
There is no other way that they can behave.

 

I hope you are not joking. Because under "properties" you can read this:

"For example, a charged black hole repels other like charges just like any other charged object, despite the fact that photons, the particles responsible for electric and magnetic forces, cannot escape from the interior region..."

I recommend you to google "Black Hole Repulsion", you'll be amazed...

 

Correct.
Now think about the strength of that charge compared to the strength of the gravities involved...

I recommend you actually delve slightly further than simply looking at the titles that Google gives you.
For example, the first one listed (and many of the other links end up at the same place) gives a link to this paper, which discusses the possible repulsive forces caused by interaction of the spins of the black hole. But nowhere in that paper does it state (or even suggest) that such force is capable of keeping the black holes apart, if indeed it exists. To quote from the paper:

My italics, note them well.
Suggests, may be, if, not a proof...

 

Prove that your suggestion has a solid evidence other than some computer simulations depending on predictions derived from some mathematical possibilities. You are speculating, and I am speculating on what would happen. My difference is that I accept that I am speculating....

 

Wrong again: "my suggestion"* is the result of physics and known properties.
Your suggestion is mere speculation based on... what?
If you want actual proof then you'll have to start by learning physics properly...


* It's not "mine" - the figures date back decades are are confirmed more every time we learn more about reality by more physicists and astrophysicists.
It's not a "suggestion", it's a prediction (in the scientific sense): based on known properties and behaviours.

 

You can not be scientific or "know your physics properly" if you can not show me an evidence, a source or anything this kind. You are just labelling your claims with words. I still see no concrete evidence.

 

I said that YOU should learn the physics: how much do you know to follow the reasoning?
How much of the paper I referenced can you follow?
It's not a question of what I know, it's a question of how much of what I tell you will you understand?
Start with Wheeler and work up...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, this is my advice to you: You keep your "impossible to follow" reasoning to yourself. Don't give me a name of a particular experiment, just stuck to your "reasonings". I don't want to understand them, I saw enough evidence to believe that not all sophisticated reasonings do always work along with what is really going on. This is the process:

1- You start with a speculation (black holes merge each other)
2- You throw Wikipedia as a starting source for the topic
3- When I show the gravitational and electric charge issue, you refuse to read it, and say it proudly.
4- You refuse to look at other claims on internet without any reason.
5- You reject to give any reference or evidence with an excuse that your opponent would not understand it.

I think you either didn't actually understand what you are talking about or you are arguing for the sake of arguing; In each case I wish you good luck...

 

Gravity only attracts. That's why black holes don't push each other away. :\

I'm not sure about 1, although that is intuitive.
2, because you're arguing against the current consensus, you must be misinformed because you have not shown that the consensus is wrong. So, you should read a wiki link.
3 Yeah I didn't read anything you wrote so I can't really help with this one.
4. Because they're on the internet. If the entire scientific community backs one idea, I'd assume that the internet doesn't hold the secret that black holes repel each other.
5. I didn't really read Oli's posts either, but come on dude, at least show logically why black holes would repel. Just because you've never heard of the evidence or proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist and need to be reproved by someone else.

Yeah I don't really think so. To any of those. Actually I'm not sure what you mean by collapse (since it IS a supposed gravitational singularity, and I have no idea what that collapsing would mean). Why would they cancel out? If an object was in between them, it wouldn't be stationary. half would go to one and half of the object would be pulled to the other. I'd assume they'd crash and do what Oli said.

 

Ah I see. You'd rather "speculate" groundlessly than learn science.

As explained, this wasn't a speculation, it's based on reality.

I didn't start with Wiki, I started with an education in physics: I offered Wiki as a starting point for YOU.

On the contrary, I answered that point in post #12. the sentence directly after the word "correct".

Again, on the contrary, I not only looked at the offered "refutations" I read them, which is more than you seem to have done. Then I quoted one of them: showing that they didn't say what you "speculated" they said.

Again, on the contrary, I ASKED what your knowledge of physics was. If I don't know how much you know then I can't tailor the explanation...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Completely wrong on both counts, but I wish you well in your continuing wilful ignorance.

 

Given the language used in the original post, I seriously doubt you have the background to comprehend many results from this search.

Perhaps you should google "black hole merger".
Some other good search ideas, just to name a few:

• NGC 6240
• 3C 75
• Arp 220
• NGC 4038/NGC 4039