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.
Astronomers have shed light on how stars can form around a massive black hole, defying conventional wisdom.
Scientists have long puzzled over how stars develop in so extreme conditions.
Molecular clouds - the normal birth places of stars - would be ripped apart by the immense gravity, a team explains in Science magazine.
But the researchers say that stars can form from elliptical discs - the relics of giant gas clouds torn apart by encounters with black holes.
They made the discovery after developing computer simulations of giant gas clouds being sucked into black holes like water spiralling down a plughole.
"These simulations show that young stars can form in the neighbourhood of supermassive black holes as long as there is a reasonable supply of massive clouds of gas from further out in the galaxy," said co-author Ian Bonnell from St Andrews University, UK.
Ripped apart
Their findings are in accordance with actual observations in our Milky Way galaxy that indicate the presence of a massive black hole, surrounded by huge stars with eccentric orbits.
The simulations, performed on a supercomputer - and taking over a year of computing time - followed the evolution of two separate giant gas clouds up to 100,000 times the mass of the Sun, as they fell towards the supermassive black hole.
Despite its interior being invisible, a black hole may reveal its presence through an interaction with matter that lies in orbit outside its event horizon. For example, a black hole may be perceived by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit its center. Alternatively, one may observe gas (from a nearby star, for instance) that has been drawn into the black hole. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and earth-orbiting telescopes.[1] [2] Such observations have resulted in the general scientific consensus that—barring a breakdown in our understanding of nature—black holes do exist in our universe. [3]
Originally posted by OnionCloud
Since when were black holes not proven?
Originally posted by OnionCloud
I would highly suggest people actually research things and find out how much work actually goes in to saying things. They don't just "happen" or get "put in" because they feel like it. It goes through very stringent measures and criteria that are peer reviewed and looked over carefully.
"We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one new delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.
…Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -– Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1852
Yes, but in the last 75 or so years they kept researching "things" and kept building on theories, without considering the electrical potential of the universe, that way, leaving imo a very big (black ) hole right in the foundation of their building.
Perhaps the first object to be generally recognized as a black hole is the X-ray binary star Cygnus X-1. Its effect on its companion star suggested as early as 1971 that it must be a compact object with a mass too high for it to be a neutron star. (That was 2 years after the American astronomer John Wheeler coined the term 'black hole').
In 1971, Louise Webster and Paul Murdin, at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, [56] and Charles Thomas Bolton, working independently at the University of Toronto's David Dunlap Observatory,[57] observed HDE 226868 wobble, as if orbiting around an invisible but massive companion. Further analysis led to the declaration that the companion, Cygnus X-1, was in fact a black hole. [58] [59]
Originally posted by OnionCloud
Where is your proof that we don't consider these things? Science has something called Peer Review, which is part of the Scientific Method that helps ensure things that are sub par in quality don't get promulgated as science.
I know what peer review is and what the scientific method contains. Who do you mean with "we"? There are a lot of peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology published by the largest professional organization in the world, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Problem is, most big bang cosmologists ignore them because of the way their theories are build.
You ask for my proof, I don't know if you are up to date with the findings in plasma cosmology and electric universe, but the fact that imaginary things like dark matter/energy and dare i say, black holes are not needed in that model to make it work says a lot imo. Now, I don't realy see the relevance of that question, because it's impossible for me to "proof" how other people think, but there is a lot of evidence that the electric nature of the universe (and gravity) is not considered by mainstream big bang cosmologists.
Originally posted by OnionCloud
I never mentioned a thing about plasma cosmology or the electric universe and never spoke about it in any way, shape, or form. I posted about the fact that there is so much overwhelming evidence for black holes that we are scientifically certain that they exist.
If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.
Physicist Lawrence Krauss and Case Western Reserve colleagues think they have found the answer to the paradox. In a paper accepted for publication in Physical Review D, they have constructed a lengthy mathematical formula that shows, in effect, black holes can't form at all. The key involves the relativistic effect of time, Krauss explains. As Einstein demonstrated in his Theory of General Relativity, a passenger inside a spaceship traveling toward a black hole would feel the ship accelerating, while an outside observer would see the ship slow down. When the ship reached the event horizon, it would appear to stop, staying there forever and never falling in toward oblivion. In effect, Krauss says, time effectively stops at that point, meaning time is infinite for black holes. If black holes radiate away their mass over time, as Hawking showed, then they should evaporate before they even form, Krauss says. It would be like pouring water into a glass that has no bottom. In essence, physicists have been arguing over a trick question for 40 years.
I posted a link to the article "The Madness of Black Holes" where plasma cosmology and the electrical universe are mentioned, better yet, are the subject of the matter.
There realy isn't that much overwhelming evidence that black holes exist. There is no consensus reached on black holes. They may exist, sure, but I doubt it.
Not so fast, says astronomer Kimberly Weaver of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Although she appreciates the physics the Case Western Reserve team is describing, the problem is "we have never observed any events that would back this up." At the site of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, for example, she says astronomers routinely observe what looks like interstellar material disappearing without a trace. Also, no one has yet detected Hawking radiation, which would be prerequisite evidence for black hole evaporation, Weaver says.
Originally posted by OnionCloud
You posted a small excerpt from an article which you failed to link. I can't see any links in your post near the top of the page.
Originally posted by OnionCloud
Says you, against the scientific evidence that has been compiled through hours upon hours of endless research and effort that make it fairly certain that they do exist.
Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models. [17] In mainstream cosmology, detailed simulations of the correlation function of the universe, primordial nucleosynthesis, and fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, based on the principles of standard cosmology and a handful of free parameters, have been made and compared with observations, including non-trivial consistency checks. Plasma cosmology generally provides qualitative descriptions and no systematic explanation for the standard features of mainstream cosmological theories. [17]
For example, the standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on dark matter collecting into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. Recent simulations show agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-Body simulations of the Lambda-CDM model. [19] Most astrophysicists accept dark matter as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models. [20]
Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by plasma filamentation proposals.The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, corresponds well to the mainstream picture. [22]
Light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis (as required in plasma cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed. [23] This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals. [25] Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed. This could be resolved by proposing, as Alfvén did, that the bubble of matter we are in is larger than the observable universe. In order to test such a model, some signature of the ambiplasma would have to be looked for in current observations, and this requires that the model be formalized to the point where detailed quantitative predictions can be made. This has not been accomplished.
No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. Proposed explanations are relying on integrated starlight and do not provide any indication of how to explain that the observed angular anisotropies of CMB power spectrum is (so low as) one part in 105. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB was measured to be so isotropic, inline with the predictions of the big bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives. These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.
Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.
Most astrophysicists accept dark matter as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models. [20]
In the gravitational model of the universe, "dark matter" attraction pulls galaxies into filaments. Birkeland currents could be a better explanation.
Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by plasma filamentation proposals.The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, corresponds well to the mainstream picture. [22]
No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced.
"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify? The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation - as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe."
In 1965, Hannes Alfvén proposed a "plasma cosmology" theory of the universe based in part on scaling observations of astrophysical plasmas from in situ space physics experiments and plasmas from terrestrial laboratories to cosmological scales orders-of-magnitude greater.[7] Utilizing matter-antimatter symmetry as a starting point, Alfvén suggested that the fact that since most of the local universe was composed of matter and not antimatter there may be large bubbles of matter and antimatter that would globally balance to equality (in what he termed an "ambiplasma"). The difficulties with this model were apparent almost immediately. Matter-antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons which were not observed. While it was possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell was simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition did not lend itself to observational tests.
Like the steady state theory, plasma cosmology includes a Strong Cosmological Principle which assumes that the universe is isotropic in time as well as in space. Matter is explicitly assumed to have always existed, or at least that it formed at a time so far in the past as to be forever beyond humanity's empirical methods of investigation.
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.[8] A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community along with other non-standard cosmologies. This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.