I believe they've done the calculations using the Schwarzschild equation and showed that it does increase faster. Or so I understand from reading wiki articles and such.
OK then. I'll trust you have done your research.
Granted, but I don't think we've actually observed a star collapsing into a black hole, so at the moment we don't know for sure what happens to it; all we have is predictions.
I recall hearing about a star that had already become a red super-giant, but I can't seem to find the article, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree here.
I did look up to see how fast pulsars can spin, which is as much as 3000 times per second before the angular momentum should overcome the star's gravity. So a black hole would have to be spinning faster than that to avoid a collapse. Since we can't observe a black hole's mass directly, I don't know how we could tell how quickly it was spinning.
Well, technically we can, we just need to find a way to survive the spaghettification (it's a real term; look it up) and look with our eyes.
Personal note: I think a black hole, if we could observe it, would be indescribably beautiful; brighter than a blazar
and the space-time distortions would be amazing.
There's also a possibility that it could be spinning rapidly enough to keep from collapsing without actually coming apart. I don't know how fast it would need to spin to do that, however. Also, the Schwarzschild metric (how they calculate the radius before it turns into a black hole) apparently doesn't apply to a rotating object, which complicates things.
Why not? I can understand it not applying to, say, a rotating sponge, but a black hole should be very close to a rigid body.
Ah, my mistake. I was referring to a different article which said that the matter might end up elsewhere in the universe or in another universe entirely.
For a second there I thought that was the same article and that I just had missed it.
White holes, IMO, are stupid. You'd think that with the enormous number of black holes in the Universe, we'd have seen giant holes of light pumping out energy and matter like they're throwing up after drinking too much, seemingly out of nowhere, then disappear. At the very least, we should be able to observe a string of particles appearing out of nowhere, then combining (as particles do, if they can) and emitting radiation. Not once has either situation been observed. EDIT: There is something, however, that has been observed, is unexplained, and could be linked to this: high-energy cosmic rays. Also, black holes gain mass with what they consume. As far as I know, this has been observed, and the mass they gain is the same that they absorb. If black holes could, in fact, dump all their matter elsewhere, they would not gain any mass and evaporate very quickly, seeing as how they spend a lot of energy.
Regarding your follow-up question, I haven't really worked with that level of math before, and thus I'm not sure how well I could work with it. Also, as I stated before, the problem with plugging an infinity (such as the infinite density that a singularity is believed to have) into an equation is, what do you do then?
Is this related to white holes or the other question that I've quoted twice? I'll assume it's the other question.
There's a way to calculate integrals with singularities, but it's not relevant to this (I think; if you disagree, say so and I'll dig up my old notebooks and try to teach you).
If you ignore the singularity (assume it doesn't exist), and the calculations don't match the observations, you will have disproven the hypothesis. If the calculations do
match the hypothesis, it's evidence that the hypothesis is right.
Can I be your second? I mean, if you're going to eviscerate your intestines, it might help to have someone ready to chop your head off before it gets to be too painful.
Thank you, jaimehlers. Very helpful, as always.