Super Masive Black Holes Ejecting Iron? is the Nuclear Sun Model Xploded?

My idea of a Nuclear Star fell out (heh heh) when I saw this doc a while back - well worth the watch

Originally posted by USAisSatanic
gives more credence that theory of relativity is flawed , and at worst ,utter bollocks .

and yet we have people who think what the textbooks and authorities tell them is right .

" more credence relativity is "flawed"

Well that's a rather broad statement. care to back it up with anything other than a cursory flip of the cap"????

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Hmmm, interesting. The author of the paper in the first comment does appear to be challenging the proton-proton chain theory of nucleosynthesis in our Sun. Which, in a sense is good news since iron is considered to be the last stage product currently.

I have no problem with a theory that proposes our solar system being the results of a remanent SN. The coalescing model always bothered me, i.e. the heat could be accounted for, but sufficient pressure?

i have been following the steady progresion towards the magnetic sun or electric sun theories

Astronomers have found the first evidence of a magnetic field in a jet of material ejected from a young star, a discovery that points toward future breakthroughs in understanding the nature of all types of cosmic jets and of the role of magnetic fields in star formation.



Radio-Infrared Image of IRAS 18162-2048

Radio jets emitted by young star shown in yellow
on background of infrared image from Spitzer
Space Telescope. Yellow bars show orientation of
magnetic field in jet as measured by VLA. Green bars
show magnetic-field orientation in the dusty envelope
surrounding the young star. Two other young stars are
seen at sides of the jet.
CREDIT: Carrasco-Gonzalez et al., Curran et al.,
Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF, NASA



Throughout the Universe, jets of subatomic particles are ejected by three phenomena: the supermassive black holes at the cores of galaxies, smaller black holes or neutron stars consuming material from companion stars, and young stars still in the process of gathering mass from their surroundings. Previously, magnetic fields were detected in the jets of the first two, but until now, magnetic fields had not been confirmed in the jets from young stars.

"Our discovery gives a strong hint that all three types of jets originate through a common process," said Carlos Carrasco-Gonzalez, of the Astrophysical Institute of Andalucia Spanish National Research Council (IAA-CSIC) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).

so if the main contenders are all seen to have these jets and magnatism is seen at the very early stages of development of stars and in small and large black holes
could the electric model be correct?
is there a need to explain the out put from the sun in a megneto-potential energy?
is the sun a ball of plasma not a ball of burning gas?
if the sun is electric, does the sun expell the electrical energy onto planets?
is there a direct electrical conection between the sun and all planets inside our helio sphere?

i only have more questions than answers

xploder

Originally posted by TheRemedial
Maybe it explodes and then over millions of years comes back together (magnetism) albeit, a little smaller than the original and then reignites because there is an energy in certain spots that is constant. When the iron masses together again it gets heated by the currents in space and a new sun is born from out of the old sun.

The ejected material from the original (depending on how far it was thrust out) forms the basis of asteroids and new planets. These planets must all be magnetic at some level and they are drawn back into the sun.

Rinse and repeat.

the process as i understand it is very close to your explination
except an outside source "arcs" or injects energy into a molecular cloud and polerizes the cloud
this causes gas to be attracted (like gas in a light bulb) and the electrostatic forces start the creation
of new star growth

im guessing here
the star gets too close to the tidal forces and is stripped of its electrostatically charged gas "bubble"
and the magnetic core is then polverized and ejected along the feild lines of the black hole
which acts like a natural particale accelerator.
this effect shoots jets many thousand light years into the local cluster medium where the process starts again

that is my guess which is very similar to yours

xploder

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Always good to see old ideas get called into question.

Really the truth I think is that we humans really don't know much about anything lol.

Sounds kind of like a super-massive galactic recycling plant ? Also I wonder how we could tie this into microverse/macroverse ideas?

You could go anywhere with things like this. That's whats so fun about thinking about weird inexplicable subjects like that.

Super deep questions and faint observations like this can help us find a unified field theory perhaps.

Sounds kind of like a super-massive galactic recycling plant ?" that is what i have always said.
Everything known to us is recycled in nature it makes sense that the whole of the universe is also reycled broken down, reused, black holes seem to be the perfect thing for that.
"

reply to post by Char-Lee


It seems that nothing can come out of a black hole, so I don't see the comparison to a recycling plant.

The iron in this article and the x-ray jets are NOT emanating from the black hole itself (i.e., not from within the event horizon, which is the point that nothing can escape the hole's gravity). The iron is stuff that was already there in the accretion disk.

The accretion disk is NOT within the event horizon, therefore the materiel can escape the hole's gravity. The X-ray jets are also outside the event horizon and (as I pointed out before) are the energy released due to the friction caused by the fast-spinning accretion disk.

Again, the important thing here is that nothing is emanating from the black hole itself -- just from the stuff that surrounds the black hole.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


i would counter that statment with this
if a black hole is "feed" to much it self regulates by radiation slowing the consumption of material
in this manner the material "outside" the event horizon is pushed away giving limits to what can be "eatin"
by the black hole.

i wounder if the explination of "all that material is outside the event horizon" is correct
if the black hole had feild lines or polar field lines this would provide a path of least resistence for particles that are magnetically active
like a paerticle accelerator

xploder

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

It seems that nothing can come out of a black hole, so I don't see the comparison to a recycling plant.

The iron in this article and the x-ray jets are NOT emanating from the black hole itself (i.e., not from within the event horizon, which is the point that nothing can escape the hole's gravity). The iron is stuff that was already there in the accretion disk.

The accretion disk is NOT within the event horizon, therefore the materiel can escape the hole's gravity. The X-ray jets are also outside the event horizon and (as I pointed out before) are the energy released due to the friction caused by the fast-spinning accretion disk.

Again, the important thing here is that nothing is emanating from the black hole itself -- just from the stuff that surrounds the black hole.

edit on 3/23/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

II don't realy know how we can be certain of anything to do with black holes at this time. Myself I have thought stuff goes in and stuff comes out recycled elsewhere maybe even another universe or dimension.

reply to post by XPLodER


Could this be some kind of 'galactic-supernova'? Or the creation of a new galexy?
Our own galaxy is about 100 000 light years in diameter, this black hole is spitting out atoms to a similer distance.
Light from NGC 6051 would reach our planet a long long time before any other 'info'.
Could it be that our opticle telescopes are seeing an infant galexy thats hundreds of thousands of years old?, but radio telescope are picking up the creation of this galexy due to the distance that it takes to recieve readings?
We can still pick up background radiation from the supposed 'big-bang', so, can we really rely on what is seen and what is measured to be both in the same equation?

you can't get around it and this is undeniable proof, that black holes fart! stinky iron farts.

sorry lol great post enjoyed the information, i have to agree with an earlier post that perhaps its a gravitational vs magnetic polarity that keeps the iron spewing out. its like the rings of Saturn only its iron...

I agree that what we theorise of black holes (we have never actually closely observed one) says that the jets don't actually come out of the black hole but occur around it as the gravity affects matter around it.

Most black holes are thought to "spaghettify" any matter falling inwards as the tidal forces on one side of the matter far outweigh those the other, so it gets drawn out into a "string" of stuff (like spaghetti). This even extends to the atoms themselves which get torn apart at the relativistic energies near to the event horizon.

Supermassive black holes have a greater spacial distribution and so are expected to spaghettify 'near' matter less than smaller black holes.

A spinning supermassive black hole would probably have areas, near the axis of its spin, where centrifugal force from the frame dragging of the spin would counter the radial compression of infalling spaghettified matter, ie: it would expand both axially and radially.

On an atomic scale, protons neutrons and electrons would be broken out of their bondage and would find themselves essentially free and therefore able to interact with other disengaged particles in ways that defy normal atomic interactions.

Turbulences in the infalling matter at the outer edges of the votex could then actually eject some of this infalling dissociated matter away from the black hole.

The smaller forces (electroweak, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) could then assemble these 'loose bits' into more normal matter or liberate nuclear energy from the infalling matter, boosting the turbulence and allowing more to escape from the black hole's grip.

These would then appear as jets around the rotational axis of the black hole as has been observed and the heavier elements just a result of the reassembly of their components by other forces.

This would be different from Hawking radiation which would occur very much closer to the event horizon.

S&F for this uncredibly interesting post.

could a black hole be a star that doesn't produce light?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

It seems that nothing can come out of a black hole, so I don't see the comparison to a recycling plant.

This is what I find pretty ridiculous.

How can you say on one hand "nothing can come out of a black hole", then on the other hand have the big bang theory? It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

The Big Bang postulates that all matter in the Universe was compacted into a dense point. That means all black holes, stars, etc. In one little point. That is a super-giant black hole technically.

So how did the super-giant black hole go "bang"? Right. It doesn't add up. All attempts to rectify this contradiction have failed in my opinion.

Originally posted by mespen
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Could this be some kind of 'galactic-supernova'? Or the creation of a new galexy?
Our own galaxy is about 100 000 light years in diameter, this black hole is spitting out atoms to a similer distance.
Light from NGC 6051 would reach our planet a long long time before any other 'info'.
Could it be that our opticle telescopes are seeing an infant galexy thats hundreds of thousands of years old?, but radio telescope are picking up the creation of this galexy due to the distance that it takes to recieve readings?
We can still pick up background radiation from the supposed 'big-bang', so, can we really rely on what is seen and what is measured to be both in the same equation?

the example given would only be true if light or the components of light travelled at different speeds
if light travels at a constant as a cumulative the radio and optical would travel together
i like the galactic super nova idea its freash and posablely the source of the emition
if it is you deserve your own award

xploder

reply to post by muzzleflash

How can you say on one hand "nothing can come out of a black hole", then on the other hand have the big bang theory?

You ask a good question, though the answer you assume is wrong. All physical singularities are not black holes. Singularities

Thanks Guys, 48 hours ago I believed I understood how black holes worked.
Now I have no idea at all!