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.

 

White Holes and Quasars????

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I was reading on wikipedia about Quasars. And I never heard of white holes before until today. But after reading posts on white holes on ATS, i saw that there is no proof that white holes exist, correct?

Couldn't white holes and quasars be the same thing?????




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Here is the definition of white hole from wikipedia.


In astrophysics, a white hole is the theoretical time reversal of a black hole. While a black hole acts as a vacuum, drawing in any matter that crosses the event horizon, a white hole acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon. The sign of the acceleration is invariant under time reversal, so both black and white holes attract matter. The only potential difference between them is in the behavior at the horizon


White hole

But quasars on the other hand are,


A Quasi-stellar radio source (Quasar) is a powerfully energetic and distant galaxy with an active galactic nucleus. Quasars were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.


Quasars

So, as you can see from above, quasars and white holes are different things, quasars are distant galaxies, whereas white holes are opposite of black holes which are dead stars. And there is much difference between stars and galaxies.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I'm not too sure about black holes and white holes yet, to be honest, astronomers don't seem to understand them much either.

Quasars on the other hand, are beautiful! I believe that Quasars are actually Galactic construction yards, they have more energy than a galaxy and yet they are the size of a large star. I think they 'spew out' galaxies, which then start to expand and grow.

I have no evidence or proof of this, I read something a while back and just thought of it, seemed to make sense.

Another member on here told me that this had been considered, but it wasn't a very popular idea, story of my life!

I can see the similarities and it is always a possibilty.

Hope you find what your looking for.

EMM

Edit to add: Wiki has some interesting information on Quasars, one of the things that stood out to me was:


The emission of large amounts of power from a small region requires a power source far more efficient than the nuclear fusion which powers stars.


For any Plasma Cosmologists out there.

Some more


Quasars have all the same properties as active galaxies, but are more powerful: Their radiation is 'nonthermal' (i.e. not due to a black body), and some (~10%) are observed to also have jets and lobes like those of radio galaxies that also carry significant (but poorly known) amounts of energy in the form of high energy (i.e. rapidly moving, close to the speed of light) particles (either electrons and protons or electrons and positrons).


[edit on 18-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 18-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



new topics
 
0

log in

join