Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?

Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?

How to delete random line from file using Unix command?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

Simulation of a banking system with an Account class in C++

Take groceries in checked luggage

How many people can fit inside Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun

Why is the object placed in the middle of the sentence here?

Wolves and sheep

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?

How are presidential pardons supposed to be used?

Match Roman Numerals

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?



Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold]



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?










-2












$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 10 at 8:01















-2












$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 10 at 8:01













-2












-2








-2





$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?







black-holes






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 9 at 8:17









Jens

2,41611431




2,41611431










asked Apr 9 at 4:48









James S.James S.

112




112




put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 10 at 8:01












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    Apr 10 at 8:01







4




4




$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46





$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46













$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z
Apr 10 at 8:01




$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z
Apr 10 at 8:01










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



    There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



    The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      8












      $begingroup$

      The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



      In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



      The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



      Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



      If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



      What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



      Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



      The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        8












        $begingroup$

        The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



        In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



        The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



        Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



        If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



        What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



        Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



        The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



          In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



          The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



          Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



          If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



          What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



          Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



          The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



          In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



          The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



          Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



          If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



          What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



          Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



          The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Apr 9 at 6:11









          Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

          10.3k21530




          10.3k21530





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



              There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



              The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                  There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                  The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                  There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                  The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 9 at 8:32









                  LuaanLuaan

                  4,5131523




                  4,5131523













                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

                      Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

                      What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company