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.

 

Temperature of Black Hole Jet Exceeds Expectations, Shatters Scientific Theory

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr

Protomagnetic caused by protons and neutromagnetism caused by neutrons give off their own seperate waves varying in different degrees of force. This is why gravity does not exist as one 1 single force but is the collection of magnetic forces all interacting and leveling out together.


"Neutromagnetism"?!

Neutrons have zero charge, mate - which means they have zero magnetic field.

Protons could form magnetic fields but since stable atoms typically contains equal levels of electrons and protons, "protomagnetism" is actually kinda rare in Nature.



There's also the problem of the magnetic force of the planet itself pulling at the wood which collectively will be much stronger than the magnet.
(...)
Something like wood is producing a very low amount of electromagnetic force

But even that is incorrect. Electromagnetism (basically the photon, which binds atoms into molecules in the wood) is not influenced by magnetic fields. The only thing pulling the wood unto the ground is gravitational attraction, magnetism has no involvement in the phenomenon.



edit on 7-4-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Anything that acts as a medium between the electromagnetic force and protomagnetic force are held together by the neutromagnetic force. Neutrons being much larger hold the carrying capacity of the neutromagnetic spectrum and is able to counter balance the force of the protomagnetic and electromagnetic spectrums. Each of these forces are different and interact with each other differently but collectively generate * gravity*. Gravity isn't one single force that pulls all matter together it is all the forces interacting.

My point with all of this, is that density does not = * Gravity* if gravity a catch all force that can pull in anything actually existed. All mass would be pulled into one location because the spread of this one force collectively over a distance would overpower all the other forces. However, it does not exist as such and is mearly the effect of these 3 common forces interacting and leveling out.

super mass density such as that of dark energy should, by the understanding of gravity saying that all matter regardless sends out gravitons based on its density. Then Dark energy should still intereact physical particles. However it does not because gravity is a force that is generated by these 3 interacting with each other.

And these forces carry partners, often when a partner attaches itself with another partner of the same complimentary waves. They will have less sending and reciving waves to attract single sub-atomic particles. A stable particle does not have any one type of particlar magnetic force but caries all of them collectively in a balence. that's what make the particle stable to begin with such as gold. Which is why it makes it a great conductor because electrons will be carried from one atom of gold to the next without being reabsorbed into the gold itself and becoming a new particle. You see what im saying? But the gold itself is still sending out neutro magnetic, proto magnetic and electro magnetic waves enough that is is attracted to physical mass with the highest carrying capacity of force. Which is the Earth. But does not carry enough electromagnetic charges for a magnet to pick it up.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

What you're smoking....I want some.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: AnuTyr

What you're smoking....I want some.


hahahahhahah, come over and il share some. It's called consciousness and it smokes great.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance




Well, it's 2.4 billion light years away, so 2.4 billion years ago.


This is what has never sat well with me. Can someone explain why now. In other words if the particular telescope was observing this (invented say 1 million years ago) would that mean the quasar was 2.4 billion less 1 million years old?

We keep hearing this time and again and I suspect all you posters know more about astrophysics than me .

Is there really a true correlation between perception and reality?

abcnews.go.com...




Scientists have apparently broken the universe’s speed limit. For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum — a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. “This effect cannot be used to send information back in time,” said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. “However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’ is wrong.” The results were published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. The achievement has no practical application right now, but experiments like this have generated considerable excitement in the small international community of theoretical and optical physicists. Previously Thought Impossible “This is a breakthrough in the sense that people have thought that was impossible,” said Raymond Chiao, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who was not involved in the work. Chiao has performed similar experiments using electric fields.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance




Well, it's 2.4 billion light years away, so 2.4 billion years ago.


This is what has never sat well with me. Can someone explain why now. In other words if the particular telescope was observing this (invented say 1 million years ago) would that mean the quasar was 2.4 billion less 1 million years old?

We keep hearing this time and again and I suspect all you posters know more about astrophysics than me .

Is there really a true correlation between perception and reality?

abcnews.go.com...




Scientists have apparently broken the universe’s speed limit. For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum — a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light — supposedly an ironclad rule of nature — can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. “This effect cannot be used to send information back in time,” said Lijun Wang, a researcher with the private NEC Institute. “However, our experiment does show that the generally held misconception that ‘nothing can travel faster than the speed of light’ is wrong.” The results were published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. The achievement has no practical application right now, but experiments like this have generated considerable excitement in the small international community of theoretical and optical physicists. Previously Thought Impossible “This is a breakthrough in the sense that people have thought that was impossible,” said Raymond Chiao, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who was not involved in the work. Chiao has performed similar experiments using electric fields.


Light travelling is only slowed by by incoming mass. Such as dark energy which acts as a type of Jelly. Much like a bullet travelling through Gel and the force of incoming air by a moving car. The faster you move in your car. The more air will be pushed away and the more force the car would need to push that air away. The faster the car goes, the more force is applied on the car by displacing oncoming particles. In the vacuum of space. Light around our star slows incoming particles down, as the gelatinous nature of our solar system creates more drag. Dark Energy is present everywhere. But so is solar radiation around our star as well as the magnetic fields generated by it.

There is a lot of mass moving to our star and out of our solar system which creates traffic the same way as there is traffic on a highway. Once mass leaves our solar system, there would be less traffic for this mass to move and thus would be moving much more quickly. If we were to live in a universe without Dark energy, There would be far less friction to slow matter down. Actually momentum would be so extreme the magnetic forces holding particles in stable oscillation would separate from each other and physical particles of mass would not exist as the acceleration of velocity would launch it all in random directions because the force of momentum would overcome the force of the particles attraction and repulsion.


Now in a true empty vacuum, say if we were reduce the concentration of Dark Energy within an area. Any particles we send within this area would have a greater variance of momentum and would move much faster than it would otherwise. I believe that it is possible do so but i don't believe we have the technology to do so right now. If we were able to, we would be able to travel almost instantaneously.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance




Well, it's 2.4 billion light years away, so 2.4 billion years ago.


This is what has never sat well with me. Can someone explain why now. In other words if the particular telescope was observing this (invented say 1 million years ago) would that mean the quasar was 2.4 billion less 1 million years old?

Essentially. It would be at least that old. Realistically, it would be older than that, but 2.4 billion years (minus the one million) would be the minimum, since that's how long that light had to travel to reach the telescope.

Think of it this way: You know sound does not travel instantaneously; If you've ever heard an echo, or heard a plane in the sky, and looked up, only to see the plane some distance ahead of where the sound appears to be coming from, you've experienced it firsthand. Just like that sound takes some time to reach you, so does light, but light travels roughly 900,000 times faster than sound, so it's not really directly observable (without precision laboratory equipment, anyway).

If there was a giant light on the Moon, that could be seen with the naked eye from Earth when turned on, you could be staring right at it while the switch was flipped, and you would'nt see it until 1.3 seconds after it was turned on. If the distance from the Earth to the Moon is roughly 1.3 light seconds, think of just how vast a light year is.


Anything you see, you're seeing as it was in the past; If you hold your hand in front of your face and wiggle your finger, you're not seeing your finger move in real-time. It only appears that you are because the length of time it takes for the light to travel from your finger to your eye is so infinitesimally short. The further out into space you look, the further back in time you're looking.
edit on 4/7/2016 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: boomstick88




Basically no gravity=no limits. If the temperature are so hot in trillions degrees, thats mean that gravity are minimal at that point


So if no gravity and trillions of degrees, how come "things" keep falling into the event horizon, or am I missing something?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne




Gravity is not magnetism. You can test it yourself at home: place a bag with 1 pound of sand near a compass. Then keep on filling the bag with more and more sand so to increase its weight. Check if the compass needle reacts.


But according to basic physics, if the mass gets larger (more sand added) the whole compass, needle and all, would move towards the sand. The gravity keeping us on this earth would affect your experiment so I don't even see how this experiment would work...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The best way to describe a black hole is, its a vortex like a drain in your bathtub. You fill the bathtub and you pull the drain. You see the vortex forming but all the water does not fall down the drain at once.

When a star goes super nova, it does not have enough density to cause it to completely implode the explosion. A black hole is magnitudes stronger than a stars supernova, so what happens is a black hole is a formation of a massive implosion in space, only this implosion is fed by incoming matter being compressed by it. Sustaining itself and crushing all matter into its vortex much like the bath water level sustains the vortex coming from the plug and the draining water. The *event* Horizon is all the mass that is orbiting the outside of the vortex if an event horizon even exists. But it will not get sucked in until it gets to close. Because all the mass does not enter the vortex at the exact same time.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yeah, but according to AnuTyr's implication, compass needles would be way over-sensitive to masses around, and that would show up dramatically.

For instance, the needle would not point at the magnetic poles, but actually down towards the centre of the Earth (where the Earth's center of gravity is located).



edit on 7-4-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Compasses rely completely on the electric magnetic spectrum, The Earth itself is a giant magnet with a north and south pole. A compass which is floating on a medium allows the strongest magnetic force displayed to pull it. If you bring a compass in front of electromagnetic interference the compass won't work. The interference would have to be localized as it would get weaker the farther you are from it.




edit on pm40000003016Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:21:02 -0500 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

thanks for that...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
question to Swanne and AnuTyr..

If the Moons gravitational force is sufficiently strong to create tides...why dont we bob up and down like the tides.

We are after all mostly water based, now if the moon affects billions of tons of water why do we not do the same.

Before you say the gravity of the earth keeps us grounded shouldn't the gravity of the earth do likewise to the larger mass of the water?. In other words tidal waves are not what we think they are?



edit on 7-4-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: missed words



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

We all know how magnetism works - that's not the point I am raising.

You said gravity is magnetism.

If the two are equivalent, then a detector (here a compass needle) should point at the center of the Earth, since gravitational pull would equate magnetic pull.

But observations show that compass needles point not at gravitational field sources.

Therefore, gravity is not magnetism.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
why dont we bob up and down like the tides.

We are after all mostly water based

It's not as much about water content than it is about size.

Water bodies are very large, so the Moon can pull on more particles and have more leverage than it does on us wee humans.

Even the ground can have tides. Yup, the solid ground itself. But ground tides are not as impressive as water tides, because liquid matter is much less rigid than solid matter and so it bends up more easily.



edit on 7-4-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: AnuTyr

We all know how magnetism works - that's not the point I am raising.

You said gravity is magnetism.

If the two are equivalent, then a detector (here a compass needle) should point at the center of the Earth, since gravitational pull would equate magnetic pull.

But observations show that compass needles point not at gravitational field sources.

Therefore, gravity is not magnetism.



The needle would be on the ground pointing at where ever it is layed on if it wasn't floating in the compass. It is still very much attracted to the ground. But the fact the needle is resting on water that makes it act like it is touching the ground it has the least amount of resistance so that the electro magnetic spectrum is just strong enough to point towards north, where the current of the worlds energy in the electrical magnetic sense is flowing from south to north.

It is attracted to the center of the planets feild but the feild is the strongest at the north end than it is at the center or the south. And that is only specifically speaking in the terms of it already being *grounded.

If you put a compass on a table it is still technically touching the ground. That is the because of the total force of all the mass of the planet is pulling it there. This isn't just the cause of the electromagnetic spectrum it is all the other spectrums as well because a compass is not made of just electrons it is made of elements that contain both neutrons protons and electrons and so has all of the forces collectively acting. However the elements that make up the compass needled are all aligned in one particular direction, which makes its influence of the electrical magnetic spectrum much stronger so it reacts with the north and south poles of the Planet. However, the other components of the compass are still very much attracted to the ground.

Im not saying that the positive negative and neutral forces don't exist, im saying gravitons don't. Because all these other forces together make up what the graviton would do however they actually repell, attract and neutralize each other instead of just pulling in one direction which allows orientation to even happen in the first place. Without these forces fighting each other and leveling out, order would not happen.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne




Water bodies are very large, so the Moon can pull on more particles and have more leverage than it does on us wee humans. Even the ground can have tides. Yup, the solid ground itself. But ground tides are not as impressive as water tides, because liquid matter is much less rigid than solid matter and so it bends up more easily.


But again...isnt the oceans "body" more susceptible to the earths gravity than a mere humans. We are also mostly water...why dont we bob up and down?.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

Like you I'm no expert, but I recently watched something that did explain some things for me.
They said, everything being emitted has not come from within the black hole, rather, everything we see is emitted by matter thats about to enter the black hole.
Ever watched the shuttle on re-entry? Notice all the fire that surrounds it? The fire is caused by friction and pressure. Its the same at the edge of a black hole, because as it pulls harder and harder on matter it all gets scrunched up against other matter and it gets very very hot and we see it as light. As all those particles get even closer they emit even more heat/radiation etc.
Its all the matter that's entering the black hole that gives of the jets and the light. A black hole without any matter entering it is just....black!

Thats how I understood it, I might be wrong



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I make some points about this in my earlier posts if you are interested in following along with the discussion
you are welcome to.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join