Black Hole Star Mystery "Solved"

My apologies if this has been posted in the wrong forum or if it has been already posted!

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.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Very interesting new information about how stars are able to form around black holes...and black holes really interest me so I figured I would post this here for other people interested in black holes to enjoy...so enjoy!

Thanks for the link, the article was amazing, but it is sad to see that the stars life is only ten million years a far cry from other stars which have a life time of nearly ten billion years.

So, now they theorise how stars form near black holes, while black holes themself aren't even proven. Imo there is something wrong with building theories on theories to achieve a picture of reality.

reply to post by KrisFromGenk


Conventional science is becoming more and more like this. It's speculation on top of speculation without very many proofs. Ever since I heard about "dark matter" I stopped paying attention. I was amazed how everyone was taking it as if it were truth when it was just a theory created to hold the current model together (which is based on more theories). If the foundation is bad then everything on top is likely bad too.

Religion was the "science" a few hundred years ago and look at how things changed.

I don't doubt the possible existence of black holes, but I DO doubt the common interpretations of how they work.

It's all just speculation based on preconceptions. I'd like to see what kind of physics models scientists come up with if after shedding all preconceptions of reality and trying to figure it out from scratch.

Since when were black holes not proven? Ask an Astrophysicist: How many black holes are in the known universe?

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]

Feel free to check out all the sources in that short paragraph.

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.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by OnionCloud
Since when were black holes not proven?

Better question is: "since when are they proven?"

I don't say they don't exist, I do doubtthey exist.
Your link talks about "may observe and may be perceived..." That is not strong enough imo to build a theorie on.

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.

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.

try this:

"The Madness of Black Holes"

"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

thats a nice litle intro that sets the mood of a fun article on black holes. Enjoy

[edit on 26/8/2008 by KrisFromGenk]

reply to post by Kruel


yes, i allmost fully agree with you. They are actually building our entire world that we live in on 99% imagination

Ah, yes, the semantics argument. Made to show that, for some reason, the observations we make can be refuted by a single word.

Ever have a teacher say to you:

"Don't you mean 'may I go to the washroom', not 'can I go to the washroom'"? It's the same thing.

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.

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.

As far as the first Black hole:

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').

Source

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]

Source

Yes, the article very carefully uses its words because they know that science can never be 100% correct, that is the very nature of it. It is also from 1997 (the Ask an Astrophysicist article), so they had less knowledge then - 11 years ago - than we do now. Science constantly grows and accumulates new knowledge so old knowledge becomes better and more correct.

Edit: Whoops, double post.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

You all dont exist. There is no proof that you are really here. colors are a figment of your imagination.

Come on, without imagination we as a race of beings would still be living in caves. Without imagination or a basis to lay ideas on, we wouldnt know alot of what we do now. We have gotten this far from Theories intertwined with Imagination.

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.

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.

Ah, yes, I did say "we" instead of scientists, and I am not a scientist. Good eye.

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.

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.

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.

So you actually answered to a post you didn't realy read?

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.

A recent example:

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.

sciencenow.sciencemag.org...


And if you want some more insight from a plasma cosmology point of view, read "The Madness of Black Holes" wich I posted earlier. I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

[edit on 26/8/2008 by KrisFromGenk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The problem with black holes is that you can't physically see them. However, you can detect them because of the enormous gravitational effects (like gravitational lensing) and the apparent absence and a star to cause it. We can't physically see gravity, is what it comes down to. We can see it act, though.

From the same article:

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.

Well, if all goes well with LHC, we may see Hawking Radiation in effect. If we don't scientists would have to consider the theory of why black holes can't exist more seriously.

I will review the link you posted, thank you. I have looked at the electric universe and plasma cosmology before hand, but not recently.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

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.

Damn, you're right. Sorry for that. Must have forgotten to make the link after I typed it. That can be confusing indeed

I have linked the article tho, in my previous post. You should realy take a look at it.

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.

Not evidence. Theories created to fill in the holes of what is observed. Please take a look at "The Madness of Black Holes". They can explain it a lot better than me

[edit on 26/8/2008 by KrisFromGenk]

The article seems to pick on Black Holes and the individuals involved in a philosophical manner a lot of the time. It also states that it's dogmatic, and I don't personally believe that to be true.Although it might appear that way if someones views aren't accepted after peer review, the fact of the matter is that Plasma Cosmology just hasn't got the same amount of research behind it that the Big Bang model does, and hasn't explained some things (other than black holes) that the Big Bang can.

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.

It seems they do have some legitimate claims, but they haven't been able to substantiate them yet. I think it probably would be useful if it were researched more, just to figure out if it's correct or not. Then again, no one can say for certain if any of this is correct 100%, we just have to go by our observations, empirical evidence, and scientific method.

I've rather enjoyed this discussion so far, and I thank you for being able to have a calm and concise conversation.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

reply to post by OnionCloud


You should try some of the other articles on holoscience. You'll find a lot of references to peer reviewed papers (useally by ieee people).

Be carefull with using wikipedia as a source

a few examples:

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.

www.thunderbolts.info...

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]

what about the large "holes" they found in the CMB? Doesn't correspond with the mainstream vision, was predicted in PC

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."

www.thunderbolts.info...

Sounds like a pretty good proposal to me.

That wikipedia article you posted is pretty much outdated.

Being a lay-man, I appreciate the ellegance of plasma cosmology compared to the (and this is my opinion of course) 99% imaginary world (dark matter/energy) of big bang cosmology.

You might wanna check thunderbolts.info and holoscience.com every now and then. Interesting stuff and they are realy up to date on the matter.

Well, I allso found this a rather pleasant conversation. Thank you too

It seems to me that Plasma Cosmology is kind of the outdated one:

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.

I think wikipedia is a mostly reliable source since it can be edited and reviewed by the open public, which includes all the scientists were talking about, and their lab partners. I agree, it shouldn't be used as the source itself, that is why I like to link to the hyperlinks that wikipedia provides in most of my external quotes. It can take up a lot of space in my character limit, but it's worth it because I'll always have my scientific sources cited.

Edit: Whoops, bolded too much.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

reply to post by OnionCloud


again very false info in that wiki article. Take a look at this discussion on thunderbolts.info:

www.thunderbolts.info...


edit: or this one www.thunderbolts.info...

[edit on 26/8/2008 by KrisFromGenk]

Heh, I notice someone called ZeuZ posts there, and he also posts on another series of forums that I post on, but his name is Zeuzzz there, I believe. I think it's safe to say that we'll just end up going in circles at this point.

Edit:
Didn't mean to sidestep the issue of editing.

If the people are concerned that their thoughts are getting filtered, then they should do something about it. I'm sure there are preventative measures that can be taken to make a controversial wikipedia topic more fair.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by OnionCloud]