If nothing can escape from a black hole once it goes inside,

>>8793952
Well if hawking is to be believed then virtual particles(paies) spawned exactly at the edge add of the black hole 'add' negative energy to the black hole thus it evaporates mass when creating a real particle(or just pure energy)

>>8793993
Explain further

A black hole is a singularity, therefore it has no real mass, or any that we can determine with modern technology. I think you mean the event horizon, so I'll reply on the basis that that's what you meant.
Hawking radiation. There ya go.

>>8793952
Black holes are sci-fi fantasy. The earth is stationary and exist on a PLANE, not a planet

>>8793952
black holes are a fucking meme physists use to inflate their egos. They see a tiny dot in a telescope do some things and they bullshit on their whiteboard until they conclude "THER A SUPER DUPER THING DAT NOTING CAN ESCAPE IM SO SMURT :P"

Hawking radiation is pure bullshit

>>8794136
>>8794170
>>8794180
>>8794186
Brainlets.

http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

We don't know much of anything about blackholes, we have conflicting theories, but as to what is actually within the event horizon, we don't have the physics to describe it. Some are now saying true singularities are impossible.

>>8794136
EXPLAIN FURTHER FUCKER

>>8793952
they emit radiation just beyond their event horizons, the energy of their gravitational fields causing pairs of particles to pop into existence in the surrounding vacuum. Over time, generating this so-called Hawking radiation makes black holes lose mass—or even completely evaporate.

>>8793952
Hawking radiation assume that particle/anti-particle pairs form just above the event horizon. Then the anti-particles fall into the black hole, while the particles go flying out.

But why don't about as many of the p[articles fall in, and about as many of the anti-particles fly away?

I assume there is an answer for this, since Hawking is a Wile E. Coyote level Super Genius and I am just some guy on /sci/... I just don't know what it is, and would like to.

>>8794798
Wasn't Hawking working on a paper that was going to disprove Hawking radiation about a year ago?
I remember reading about it when writing an essay about black holes for an undergrad course.

>>8794197
>We don't know much of anything about blackholes
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>8794938
Physicists have no idea what's going on. If you're going to be a smug shit then go apply for your nobel prize.
They have a rough idea of how time and space behave inside it, but really little is known of what's going on beyond the horizon, or at lease the very center.