I realise that, im curious as to what would cause that to occur tho, likewise with black holes which was explained already

> Would that then mean, from a scientific point of view, there are particles that have always and will always exist and cannot be changed or destroyed

Not at all, E²=m²c⁴+p²c² says there's always the opportunity for the energy contained in matter to unravel and just be energy (eg nuclear fission/fusion, proton decay, etc), or vice versa (eg kugelblitz).

A black hole is an infinitely dense mass

The opposite would be empty space

Thankyou for being so thorough I will have to look into this more as I've only done basic high-school science. Appreciate it none the less though:)

Yay! White holes are my space obsession. I love when people talk about this theoretical object and the possibility that the Big Bang was a white hole. It is my belief that white holes are the “other side” of a black hole and so each black hole is birthing a new universe inside of itself so maybe the Taoists were on to something with their symbol ☯️. But I’m not a scientist so I’d love to see more people with real knowledge comment on this.

> Is this some sort of chemical reaction?

No, it's dramatically more complex than a chemical reaction, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#Big_Bang/Supermassive_White_Hole - "The Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity extends general relativity by removing a constraint of the symmetry of the affine connection and regarding its antisymmetric part, the torsion tensor, as a dynamical variable.
Torsion naturally accounts for the quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of matter.
According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular black hole.
In the Einstein–Cartan theory, however, the minimal coupling between torsion and Dirac spinors generates a repulsive spin–spin interaction that is significant in fermionic matter at extremely high densities.
Such an interaction prevents the formation of a gravitational singularity.
Instead, the collapsing matter on the other side of the event horizon reaches an enormous but finite density and rebounds, forming a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.
The other side of the bridge becomes a new, growing baby universe.
For observers in the baby universe, the parent universe appears as the only white hole.
Accordingly, the observable universe is the Einstein–Rosen interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe.
The Big Bang was a nonsingular Big Bounce at which the observable universe had a finite, minimum scale factor."

And that's just a postulate/hypothesis, not something we have any definitive evidence for, or can even test with current technology.

> Secondly do we not know as a species why black holes/ white holes are able to exist.

We know many (but not all) details of how black holes form and how they behave - we predicted them, then found a bunch with our telescopes.

I believe there's some contention about how the Pauli exclusion principle gets squashed when a neutron star gets big enough to transition, but perhaps I'm simply not well-read enough.

We do not know what happens beyond the event horizon, although there are several competing ideas even amongst the highest echelons of cosmological theorists and pure mathematicians.

> Third question, have we ever observed a white hole colliding with a black hole.

We're not convinced that the big bang is a white hole, but if it is, it's the only one we've ever seen - there's no evidence that there are (other) white holes in the universe even though they show up in our math.

Also, Follow up questions tho, Is this some sort of chemical reaction? Secondly do we not know as a species why black holes/ white holes are able to exist. Third question, have we ever observed a white hole colliding with a black hole.

Would that then mean, from a scientific point of view, there are particles that have always and will always exist and cannot be changed or destroyed and when these particles collide it creates big bangs so to speak?

[removed]

White holes - the Big Bang is (arguably) an example of one.

So it will have a smaller mirror than the Hubble? why not a bigger mirror now that we have bigger rockets?

[removed]

[removed]

It's not for weapons for now. Guess what you can do if you control satellites in space: you can practice controlling them, practice running into other ones. It's weapon-adjacent.

A scaled down version of the LUVOIR Oh well, better than nothing for sure.

Would gravitational forces slowly "correct" it's axis so that they are closer to parallel?

Hello u/Oxey405, your submission "What if a planet has it's magnetic north pointing towards it's star ?" has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

[removed]

[removed]

The magnetic side of things is completely arbitrary on internal inner/outer core/mantle interactions and it can even flip, disappear or be stable. The rotation of the core is obviously in the same inclination but the field from it is far from “stable”. Currently north is somewhere over northern canada i think. The physical inclination of a planet is most likely due to material accretion, and then large planetoid collisions, like a mars sized body wacking earth from an inclined orbit, which imparts that inclination (part of it) to a young earth. These inclined impacts happen due to gravitational interactions with other bodies which throw them in any which direction the masses worked out. Chaotic to say the least. That most planets except weirdo uranus ended up with sensible/neat inclinations just indicate they were mostly in orbits and that the disc formed fairly flat. Any significant planetoids in way out orbits likely ejected themselves due to being too weird to become likely impactors (3D space, 2D racetrack). That being said, venus is rotating completely the wrong way around so it wasn’t all neat and tidy.

no, if it was tidally locked, the axis of rotation would be where we expect the north/south poles to be. u can't rotate on 2 axes at once, and as far as I know, tidal forces wouldn't be strong enough to precess the axis once a year like that. something something rotational inertia (to be clear, I'm not a physicist, I just have spent way too much time learning about space)

like if it were tidally locked? so likely a dwarf star?

Hmm, unless it was also tidally locked maybe?

[removed]

Just because someone is a volunteer does not give anyone the right to be cavalier with someone's life.

Also, space flight is not only expensive, but also the training is argious.

You can't just take random people off the street, blast them into space with a slap on the back and a good luck. It would be certain death.

So until humans understand and are able to overcome all of the hurdles preventing us from living in space permanently, any attempt to do so is pointless.