But then it's not water, is it?

but its still there, and can be made into water again

Just don't compare water to space, ever, again! March to bed right now meeseter!

Our atmosphere is like 70% hydrogen and 19% oxygem.

By your logic, 57% of our atmosphere is water.

it takes lots of energy to put them together to make water,so even if there is example 50 %hidrogen and 50 % oxigen,it takes quite a lot of force or pressure to make it into water

I think the point is that matter can't be destroyed, it can be changed but it can't be destroyed

You mean 66%/33% I think.

it was just an example

Wait shit what am I talking about? 70% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.

It's been way too long since chemistry.

It's around 78%. But it's variable.

20% of it is oxigen or air all together for us to breath

Of course energy cannot vanish. If a black hole sucks in some matter, it doesn't disappear in to the ether. The black hole becomes more massive and its gravitational pull increases.

A white hole?

I don't think there is any evidence to support white holes and the concept doesn't make sense (at least not to me)

A white hole would just be a star.

the concept of a white hole is the oppisite of a black hole (pushes things away instead of pulling them in) I belive such a thing is impossable, but I could be wrong (as I often am)

Cool! I'm gonna go swim in the sky for a while.

It was a Red Dwarf reference.

Let's break this down for a moment; a black hole is called 'black hole' because:
a) It does not emit light (i.e. black)
b) It's gravitational pull is so strong that almost nothing can escape (i.e. a hole)

Something with the name 'white hole' would emit light, but would still be a hole. Note that this also means that the gravitational pull must therefore be weaker as it is that force that stops light from being emitted.

What you're hypothesising about would be some sort of infinite emitter of light and particles, which is impossible. I suppose the closest thing to an 'opposite' of a black hole would be a supernova, which is a massively exploding star.

I thought the idea was that the white hole was somehow recieving the matter pulled into the black hole. That doesn't make it any more plausible, of course. Besides, that area's alredy covered by the wormhole theory.

Has anyone seen that new poster that revolutionises the theory of black holes (I'll try and find it) basically scientists now believe that black holes actually throw two rays of light and matter away from the hole which collides with other things in the area of the hole, devastating whole systems, there's one in this forming galaxy of which name I forget (I'll try to find this too!)

hm sounds exciting,have you saw the big "black hole" like thing at the center of the galaxy,it looks very light pink like when we observe the galaxy and we see that bright light at the center,i think i saw somewhere that it consumes 1000 solar masses per year

No, I never saw a clear picture since it's usually shrouded by gas and excess debris but imagine the potential if black holes can be escaped or at least, if one could be fired out.

i found a pic of a proto planetary disk,that creates a star with planets,looks cool

Water molecules exist at a lower energy level than Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules: converting to water releases energy. You do need a small amount of energy to start it off, but the additional energy provided by the reaction provides this for the rest of the raw material. This process is called burning.

It doesn't actually have to emit anything. It is called a "white hole" because it is the opposite of a black hole, in that it has a very strong repulsive, antigravity force. It won't emit anything if there is nothing to emit, and such an object would be very exotic indeed. They are theoretically possible, but we currently know of no substances, exotic as they would be, that could have the required properties, nor a process likely to produce such an object. Conventionally we should think that they would be about as unstable as objects can get, since its very force should probably blow it apart.

I don't know what you are talking about, but it has been known that "feeding" black holes emit radiation and jets of plasma due to, for example, the synchrotron process. In fact, this accounts for active and radio galaxies, in the center of which are supermassive black holes formed in the centres of thew colossal gas clouds that were the early pre-star galaxies, and are possibly responsible for star formation.

It is now known that most (if not all) galaxies contain such a black hole, on the order of thousands to billions of solar masses. Ours certainly does.

just out of curiosity are the stars orbiting something as well, if so what are they orbiting (my best guess would be the black hole in the centre of our galaxy but I am uncertain)

Everything in our galaxy is turning around the galactic centre. If I remember that Monty Python song rightly, it's 30,000 light-years away, and we make one full orbit every 200,000,000 years.

Had physics today, and I remember that the sun has made 20.9 rotations of the centre of the galaxy in the Earth's lifetime, but about 0.002 times in the time humanity has been around (about 50,000 years).

@BM - Andromeda does and so does I think a fledgling galaxy named '0402+(don't know this bit)' or something...the thing is if a fledgling galaxy can create a black hole, I wonder whether what we know about black hole formation and if it's correct...

I've always understood that one of the first entities to appear in a galaxy is the supermassive black hole. Right where all that mass collapses on itself as gravity pulls the galactic cloud together from all the nonsense before.