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.

 

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

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
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?




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
just a thought.... what if the Iron atoms and other elements that are found in the ejected cloud which extends 100,000 light-years around the black-hole never actually made it into the black-hole itself...
but was blasted or otherwise ejected away from the event-horizon before all that atomized matter got
into the death grip of the black-hole.

its my understanding that Suns or Planets that get sucked into a black-holes event horizon get totally deconstructed/pulverised into atomic particles...and do not just fall into the black-hole as a solid,
physical mass -> think of comet shoemaker-levy as an analog of a solid body breaking up
into a stream of material while falling into the comparatively weak gravitation of a gas-giant Planet ---

What would have that comet been like approaching a black-hole --?
i'd guess it would become a stream of ionized gas & atomic particles at the several light-year distance
of the event-horizon before entering the black-hole proper.


I think there is probably a high chance you are correct the same occurred to me as as far as I'm aware it's one of the ways they explain the black hole jets. It's certainly a lot more palatable than matter escaping although I still think black holes are one of the few things in the universe we will never even begin to understand.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Black hole=universe cleanser
Matter goes into gets reorginized redistributed into lil universe as reprocessed elements. So there may be black holes that spew all kinds of known and unknown matter (even dark matter black holes or holes unable to be seen BY human sorry LIVING INTERIOR UNIVERSAL INHABITANTS). I think when they are eating many compare their eating to fluid going down a drain. Fluid goes down, but I feel these celestial cleansers just gather as much matter in their local vicinity COMPRESS MATTER then re manage it say turning old low charged particals compressable into new replinished particals original or new sized. Maintaining universal weight and balance then returning them into space in what some call white holes... So nothing gets eatin just polished up more less and re distributed... The everlasting universe and its filters. But this is just my out of box thinking, felt I would add.

edit on 3/23/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
So instead of sucking in energy and materials it's ejecting energy and materials?

Interesting.



Originally posted by Devern
Could this be the "exit" from another black hole?
edit on 23-3-2011 by Devern because: (no reason given)


No.

This material is not being ejected from the black hole itself, but from the jets emanating from the motion of accretion disk surrounding the block hole. The material close to the black hole revolves around the hole so fast that the friction produced by this rotation produces jets of energy at its pole axes. This energy is NOT in the "deadly grasp" of the black hole -- i.e., it's not inside the hole's event horizon. If it was, then it could not escape.

Black holes do not suck in "everything within sight". For example, if our Sun was suddenly replaced with a black hole with the same mass as our Sun, the planets would still keep their same orbits as if nothing changed (none would suddenly get sucked into the black hole).

As ATS member Astyanax pointed out in his earlier post Here, black holes don't eject anything -- but the only things that get sucked are things that are within the event horizon. Stuff outside the event horizon are free to escape the area surrounding the black hole.

This is all 100% consistent with the current understanding of black holes.

(there IS theoretical "Hawking Radiation", but that is not stuff being ejected from the black hole, but rather verrrrry slowwww apparent radiation of the stuff in a black hole using a weird and indirect mechanism)


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



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   


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

edit on 3/23/2011 by yeahright because: Fix link for embedded vid



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

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"????



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

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.
"



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
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...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
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.
edit on 23/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
could a black hole be a star that doesn't produce light?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Thanks Guys, 48 hours ago I believed I understood how black holes worked.
Now I have no idea at all!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join