It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The sun is a black hole

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
gravity seems to like circles and spheres, hence objects in space tend to orbit in ellipse or circle formations. Hence why when two objects collide they form a new spherical object. Starting from the core of the earth upwards everything is spherical, hence if we go further up we can assume based on this that the universe itself is spherical.




posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: rkingpin

An interesting theory, but our Sun is the products of Gravity and the Nuclear Forces. The tremendous gravity at the center of the sun has the ability to overcome the coulomb barrier and force two hydrogen nuclei to fuse. The sun is really just a massive Nuclear Explosion kept in check by an enormous amount of gravity.


Surely you don't believe anyone actually *knows* that? Gravity is a complete assumption & anything having to do with the sun even more so.

I like the OPs theory quite a bit actually.

But I like the theory of the sun giving birth to planets even more (/:
edit on 12-3-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: rkingpin

An interesting theory, but our Sun is the products of Gravity and the Nuclear Forces. The tremendous gravity at the center of the sun has the ability to overcome the coulomb barrier and force two hydrogen nuclei to fuse. The sun is really just a massive Nuclear Explosion kept in check by an enormous amount of gravity.


Surely you don't believe anyone actually *knows* that? Gravity is a complete assumption & anything having to do with the sun even more so.

I like the OPs theory quite a bit actually.

But I like the theory of the sun giving birth to planets even more (/:

I'd have to argue that there is plenty of evidence of gravity. On all but the quantum scale, it's completely predictable. Newtonian physics is quite accurate when describing the orbits of the planets. Acceleration due to gravity is also very well understood, as in an object falling towards Earth will accelerate at a given rate until it reaches terminal velocity. I hesitate to disparage your beliefs on the subject, but gravity is far from an assumption. While we may not have a complete grasp of how it is propagated on a fundamental level, it is plainly obvious that it indeed exists.
I'll gladly cede the point that we have only theories about the inner workings of the Sun. We cannot truly observe the processes occurring there with the limitations of current technology. And while a large percentage of our theories and predictions concerning those processes quite readily seem to fit with observations, first-hand confirmation still lies beyond our collective reach.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Based purely off inference I would say that the central black hole in our galaxy CONTAINS our galaxy, and that the stars ARE the exit points of it's mass absorption. It seems likely that any mass that goes into the black hole becomes the SAME substance as the black hole, which creates gravity wells and not light. Perhaps then repulsion of like substance would push this gravity well away from the black hole. And while it is being pushed away it would be going through the CBH's STAR BIRTHING ZONE, accreting mass. Thus a galaxy is born(?)

This all assumes that the mass of a black hole would ultimately repel the new addition of mass to it's core, even though it may cross the event horizon. I make this INFERENCE based upon the observed phenomena of two black holes coming in close proximity of each other. One shoots off at CRAZY speed; repulsion OR mass/energy transfer. We as a species do not know the properties of a black hole's substances in an objective sense. As such no empirical data, no ACTUAL concrete knowledge.

What it does explain is the seeding of gravity wells and the mystery of where the mass a black hole picks up goes. I would assume that the substance of a black hole would easily be able to create a star with enough mass accretion via the rotation observed within our CBH's gravity. Only the rotation is sub-sub-sub-sub............sub-atomic to the point of hydrogen fusion via intricate sub-atomic orbits due to the gravity well's influence (i.e. it condenses the matter (gas) so close together it fuses). Since a black hole's observed property is gravity/containment, the nuclear explosion is easily contained in a SYMMETRICAL pattern, which can easily fractalize.

If the gravity well isn't strong enough to create fusion, it would then create a gas giant. Still weaker and gas giant phase is lost because rotation against weak gravity means gases escape. Thus it would appear more of a rock planet with some type of "atmosphere" which would be a mix of gas retained by gravity and gas displacement from the terrestrial accretion mass.

All of this is inference based of what I have been told is observed activity around black holes. That's hearsay and doesn't stand in legal court; on top of the understandably incomplete information we have, any "theories" or "laws" have no actual foundation. BUT by the knowledge known of our galaxy's structure and mechanics, it would appear that the central black hole seeds the mass it absorbs in a symmetrical orbit created by it's gravitonic (?) nature.

Hello ATS, by the way! Been lurking for a bit (long bit)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Millions on suns in this galaxy, that are the exit for black holes? so there should be a corresponding number of black holes somewhere? is that right? If so, why is there only one black hole we think we know is at the centre of the galaxy?

Well, we don't actually 'know' Sirius A* exists either. We infer it's existence from available evidence. And actually there are a good deal more black holes (read: quasars) that we have considerably better evidence for and observations of. Our galactic black hole is rather inactive, meaning that it rarely absorbs enough matter for us to observe the event. And, our view of the region of space it inhabits is heavily obscured by clouds of dust and gas. Only certain infrared frequencies penetrate these obstacles and can be observed. In fact, it's only relatively recently that the idea of our galactic black hole became widely accepted. Since it doesn't 'feed', it lacks the accretion disc and accompanying emissions to make it's existence apparent.
Quasars, however, are a long observed phenomenon in space. While their nature (being supermassive blackholes in galactic cores actively absorbing matter, and emitting massive jets of high energy photons) was poorly understood at first, we now know considerably more about other supermassive black holes than we do our own.
edit on 24-3-2015 by pfishy because: Sorry, forgot my lunch.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



the idea of our galactic black hole became widely accepted. Since it doesn't 'feed', it lacks the accretion disc and accompanying emissions to make it's existence apparent.


I sort of think/view the galaxy itself as the accretion disk.

Most people tend to think something they can "see" with their own eyes as being real / existing. As in the case of Sirius A, since we can actually see it without any aid using our very own eyes...perhaps we don't need so much data to know its there. Course, that data will come in rather handy IF we decide to learn about the star.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
what we have not seen is the layer above the universe, which may just be one of mnay layers, so the black holes could also be sucking in matter and energy upto or down to another level.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
And as yet, no one has posted the song by Soundgarden.


I prefer the Weird Al Yankovic version, but then I like "Foil" as well LOL.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: rkingpin

Truth is...we don't fully understand gravity. We don't fully understand the sun. We don't fully understand the stars. We don't fully understand black holes.
Its amusing that people use scientific'facts' to explain our sun when we know these will most likely be replaced by new paradigms in the near future.
We have no idea what is at the centre of our sun or if it is quantum-entangled with a black hole.
Stars and the sun are electric, pulsing inside.
We have a lot to learn. Theories like this help us imagine the truth

edit on 29/3/2015 by daftpink because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join