What is the Gamma burst frequency, indicating Black Hole formation,
the ones we detect, and are they increasing, or decreasing, and how
much mass/energy would that represent, given the age of the universe<using
current estimates and average mass/energy of these events>...?

Gamma ray bursts occur a few times per day, but black hole formation
is only one of many competing theories. I haven't seen any figures for
the detection rate trend, but my guess would be that it's increasing -
as a direct result of putting more time and effort into looking for
them.  It's not possible to tell how energetic these events are since
the exact mechanism isn't known. If the GRBs aren't beamed, then the
more energetic ones are equivalent to a star the size of our sun being
converted to gamma rays!  If the GRBs are beamed, then the energies
are more like those of a supernova.

Ian G.

Thanks Ian, I really liked your answer.
If all of us leave bread crumbs on the way into this problem, their
may be a way to get out with the answer, just follow the dough<G>.

Steven H.<NO, NOT NEWTONs sucessor>

P.S. Sorry, to hear about the drout headed your way...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994856

Steven, thanks for your concern, but I'm in the UK :-) .  I believe
we're due for an ice-age!

Ian, my mistake, first time "-ga" user.  Keep an eye on the fresh
water in the North Atlantic.  If it gets too high, I understand the
Virgin Islands are nice...

Ian,

On reflection the length of the burst should be in direct proportion
to the Mass/energy of the new black hole.  What ever happens to cause
the Gamma ray burst<my pet solution is that the singularity spun up to
the speed of light, and had to shed some quantum foam to get back to
stability<rate unknown>>...

Enjoy, 
Steve

> What is the Gamma burst frequency, indicating Black Hole formation.
At present that is an unknown vairiable.

> are they increasing, or decreasing.
Increasing (due to more "black holes" being discovered) otherwise
unknown vairiable.

> how much mass/energy would that represent, given the age of the universe using
> current estimates and average mass/energy of these events.
At present unknown vairiable, but known to be increasing.

Black holes are still theoretical entities used to explain observed
physical phenomenon, they may turn out to be something quite
different.

Hi Omega#,

  I thought Dr. Hawking<sp> paid up on that bet, some rather explicit
periodical, as I recall, I also remember the word "consternation"
floating around the winners household<G>...  If it's good enough to
Steven<-or- is it ph>, It's good enough for me.  I am surprised we
haven't sent a directed beam of light<laser> at the closest one, each
beam containing a tag of the origin/angle of the three dimensional
billiard stot.

Consider how many lifetimes would it take for your laser experiment.

And yes although many accept "Black Holes" they are still
hypothetical, as is the "Big Bang" theory.

Pop science is there to provoke discussion, debate and
experimentation, which in turn can produce new discoveries.

Omega#,

I haven't ever bought into the Big Bang...
Just like I never bought into NOT being able to trisect an angle...

We now know that we can bend light, i.e. being able to see a Stars
light that we should not be able too see, during an eclipse<and thats
just one solar gravity>.  What if Albert E. and Edwin H. were wrong
about the spectrum shift of light and being able to speed up<even past
the 186,000mps speed limit> and slow down light.  Then the light
might<I say MIGHT> get back a lot sooner.  It<light> should be
speeding up both ways, Hmmm, correct...?

Boy this is fun, just love shaking out the possibilities...

Seems Hawking lost the bet after all

see

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040712/full/040712-12.html

Omega#,

Thanks for the link to the article, I knew somthing was up...
Not another lost bet, hmmm, looking forward to hearing his full presentation...
"Information", interesting word...
"ALL THE POSSIBLE HISTORIES", very very interesting...
Still having trouble buying into dark energy, myself, hmmm...?
So maybe our Galaxies Black Hole could already be gone, hmmm...?
Why can't his new radiation end up as hydrogen...?
All those electrons have to go somewhere...?
Maybe they<electrons> grab a few particles, and a few billion tons of
energy along the way...?
Sure would explain the ring in the center of our Galaxie, and that
stuff<for the lack of a better word> slowing down enough to become
hydrogen...?

Oh, goodie, more possibilities...!

Again thanks,
Steven H.

A thought came to mind:
If light is effected by gravity, then light itself never reaches that
constant, because it has mass, hmmm.
The distance around the center of our Galaxy may be equal to the time
it takes for light to be accelerated to close to the constant as it
can get, stacking up on itself, until enough mass is present for a
hydrogon atom, at the same time, that matter comes to rest, having
reached the constant, hmmm.

Your thoughts...?

Steven H.