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.

 

-2 Black Hole Caught Eating Another- viewed using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Mass, rotation.
E=Mc2.
An event horizon is defined by where the orbital velocity reaches c, that's the point nothing escapes. That's my take on it.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Tsurugi, wow thank you for the informative post there my friend and yes I can tell it takes 1 to know 1
.

@Incidentally, a cubic centimeter of neutronium is postulated to have an earth-weight of tens of millions of tons.

This I find amazing because its like material compression occuring so much that somehow these Neutron stars are holding more energy then mass they dont equal out. In this area 1 feels more needs to be understood. its just so wild these neutral particals are designed like this. Outta box imaging if there was a way to inflate lol or restart the process. This neutronium you speak of if designed into craft mak possess attributes related to antimatter travel since they are compressing the mass but still keeping the energy load. Maybe some type or neutronium engins that emitt these particals into space somehow opening or compressing space in the Line of fireed neutronium gas.

Again thanks for your time 7 data shared Tsurugi


NAMASTE*******



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Does the biggest really win.

Because the greater, and stronger blackhole could be the smaller one couldn't it? if It's an imploded star, wouldn't the gravity pull it in to an even smaller hole that is has a lot more gravitational potential?

So if the smaller one is stronger, would the small black hole swallow the larger blackhole?
edit on 31-8-2011 by DAZ21 because: spelling



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
how can a compact source of radiation be called a black hole,
some of them are the most luminous objects we know of

xploder


I feel the name is more based on the observers not fully understanding what happens upon entrance of these black holes, hence a black location of data, more less then because of their light emitting characteristics.
Good point tho XPLodER
thanks



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



Maybe some type or neutronium engins that emitt these particals into space somehow opening or compressing space in the Line of fireed neutronium gas.

I dunno. Maybe some way of harnessing the potentials will be found. For instance, if Neutronium could be somehow used as fuel, a lifetime's supply of energy for one person would be a tiny, tiny flake of neutronium that would require a microscope to actually see it. Unfortunately it would also weigh as much as the average 4 bedroom house.
edit on 8/31/2011 by Tsurugi because: The "reply to" was wrong...got my tabs mixed up.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DAZ21
 



Does the biggest really win.

Because the greater, and stronger blackhole could be the smaller one couldn't it? if It's an imploded star, wouldn't the gravity pull it in to an even smaller hole that is has a lot more gravitational potential?

So if the smaller one is stronger, would the small black hole swallow the larger blackhole?

Well, the "winner" here would be the "bigger" object in the sense that it has more mass. Like Yoda said, "Size matters not."
While the actual composition of the material within a singularity has obviously never been observed, the current line of thought is that it is, in fact, a singularity....in other words, it is a mathematical point. It has no "mass" size of any kind in normal space. So "measuring" the size of a black hole ceases to have any meaning regarding its physical self, and becomes wholly a measurement of the force of its gravity. The more mass contained in a singularity, the larger the "sphere of influence" of the Event Horizon.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Yes, and that would mean the bigger one wins. When galaxies collide, the bigger one wins.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yah.
Did I not say it clearly enough or something? As long as you're talking about mass instead of size when you say "big", then yeah, the bigger one wins. That's the point I was trying to make.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Well as how I understand things re. BH...the reason they seem to have such luminesence is due to the energy released from the star material as it is falling toward the black hole. tremendous energy is let loos as the atomic structure of stars are ripped apart. but that happens BEFORE the material crosss the even horizon. once the material and light crosses the EH, at that point is nothing able to been seen again.
Also keep in mind that a lot of the "photos" we see of black holes are really just x-ray images that have been colorized for our pleasure and education. at least thats my take on things. if im incorrect then hopefully some one will set me straight.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dreadphil
 


I see what you mean and it can be kind of confusing to see the pictures and remind 1 self that these are xray images with color and if actually viewd with human eyes all that may be seen is the heat blurr given off as the BH areas sit infront of other cosmic materials. The blurr you see when your at a cook out and you see the heat comming of grill and the view behind the heat from grill is blurred. Good point made there. I just find it odd that once things enter the EH the become invisible or destroyed recycled releasing no light.

Thanks for you input dreadphil, be well.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


Hey bud, I was using your post for support. You understand. We are on the same side.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It is amazing the stuff that goes on in the universe
I wonder if NASA has named this yet? maybe "Space Anomaly # 2469"



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 




I just find it odd that once things enter the EH the(y) become invisible or destroyed recycled releasing no light.


I don't reside in the camp that matter is destroyed passing the EH, the fabric of the subatomic adds to the energy of the BH, as Hawking recanted, "Information is not lost in a BH". As you mentioned 'recycled' may be a better logic, and the super massive BHs may give us a glimpse of the very singularity process leading up to the Big Bang. Since no baryonic matter can travel c it seems we have a paradox. Mass that can accelerate mass to c or beyond? That idea seems to conflict with the micro strong forces of nature, to become near opposite in the macro. So does super mass strip matter to pure massless energy? In thinking (to me at least) it is easier to explain how the massless photons can't escape the gravity of a BH, what is the mystery to me is what happens to the mass. Is mass real? Or is mass a collection of massless forces in motion that require (a cool enough temperature, or slow enough of a speed–energy), to bind to form the quarks, electrons, and leptons, (and everything we can detect in nature) which may not be the very end of what we refer to as elemental particles, maybe they are a collection of forces and not particle mass after all.

If that above isn't just complete gibberish and misinterpretation, I would like to add one last supposed observed aspect of special relativity as I understand it. As you approach c, your time slows, all of the atomic structure that is you slows, and at the point c is achieved (hypothetically) time would stop. So if you place yourself as a photon traveling c (hypothetically of course because that is impossible because a photon has no mass) A photon traveling c experiences no time elapse, yet what you see is light as photons reaching your sensory system, that got to you from the photon's perspective instantaneously with in no time, does it exist without time?

If you could (but can't) travel c, you would therefore do so in no time, so theoretically you could reach any point in the Universe instantaneously by your perspective, in no time. Just don't try to return from where you started from, because there, time has elapsed without you, and the further you went, the further in the future you would arrive at where you started from, as you experienced virtually no time at all.

I know my typing style is confusing to follow, and my logic may simply be worse, I'm just trying to put it out there for any discussion.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
I don't reside in the camp that matter is destroyed passing the EH, the fabric of the subatomic adds to the energy of the BH, as Hawking recanted, "Information is not lost in a BH". As you mentioned 'recycled' may be a better logic, and the super massive BHs may give us a glimpse of the very singularity process leading up to the Big Bang. Since no baryonic matter can travel c it seems we have a paradox. Mass that can accelerate mass to c or beyond?


To go further I feel the recycling process of energy convert the previous before EH energy to darkmatter or dark energy basically regenerating space, which only adds to the pov that information or energy isnt lost.


Originally posted by Illustronic
That idea seems to conflict with the micro strong forces of nature, to become near opposite in the macro. So does super mass strip matter to pure massless energy?


Dark energy or dark matter, potentially?


Originally posted by Illustronic
In thinking (to me at least) it is easier to explain how the massless photons can't escape the gravity of a BH, what is the mystery to me is what happens to the mass. Is mass real? Or is mass a collection of massless forces in motion that require (a cool enough temperature, or slow enough of a speed–energy), to bind to form the quarks, electrons, and leptons, (and everything we can detect in nature) which may not be the very end of what we refer to as elemental particles, maybe they are a collection of forces and not particle mass after all.


I think the mass energy becomes part of the BH (life) fuel = BH new MASS added and any remaining parts are converted into some new form of refined energy after being STRIPPED as you mentioned of the heavier mass related parts converting them into dark energy or dark matter.


Originally posted by Illustronic
If that above isn't just complete gibberish and misinterpretation, I would like to add one last supposed observed aspect of special relativity as I understand it. As you approach c, your time slows, all of the atomic structure that is you slows, and at the point c is achieved (hypothetically) time would stop. So if you place yourself as a photon traveling c (hypothetically of course because that is impossible because a photon has no mass) A photon traveling c experiences no time elapse, yet what you see is light as photons reaching your sensory system, that got to you from the photon's perspective instantaneously with in no time, does it exist without time?

If you could (but can't) travel c, you would therefore do so in no time, so theoretically you could reach any point in the Universe instantaneously by your perspective, in no time. Just don't try to return from where you started from, because there, time has elapsed without you, and the further you went, the further in the future you would arrive at where you started from, as you experienced virtually no time at all.

I know my typing style is confusing to follow, and my logic may simply be worse, I'm just trying to put it out there for any discussion.


Hey its ATS WE are all a lil deep
,on topic. Yes as some particals approach their max vacuum speeds (c) before gaining more mass its learned these particals will gain more mass slowing the atomic particals to an observable stop ( but did they stop or did the eyes observe them stopping ) sorta like a REAL ET/Alien craft from another dimension may not all be seen with the naked eye only parts of it that the brain can understand. But throw in an unknown factor like partical conversion/enhancement from the speed influence, stripping or fusing the particals into something else (old refined partical now new) this may allow said photons or other particals to travel on and non stop as they do w/o slowing and maybe just maybe the light sensed within the eyes of observers is is still passing thru the eyes its just not recorded once the eyes process what data they capture unless you turn your eyes that way.

I see you get pretty deep into these types of interest im sure you gotta have LHC interest as well. Thank you for your time my friend and maybe the gift to know ALL is something waiting for those who appreciate the data.

Be well

edit on 9/1/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I like your thinkng on this. unfortunatly I do not have the math skills to work out any form of theory or even to understand anything beyond E=Mc2, but I think I can grasp the crux of your idea. Once an object has reached c ( speed of light for all the laymen) it essentially has stopped in time.Time no longer passes for it.
the nanosecond it slowed down even a fraction of c, then time would resume,

now heres what I always wanted to know. What IS LIGHT? its said it is both a particle and a wave..its a single unit of Photon. BUT how can an object NOT have mass yet still have an effect on its suroundings? Also if the photon IS moving at c, then how are we able to observe it? technically once c is achieved, it stops in time, since we are always moving thru time then how is it we see light? its all very confusing. yet exciting none the less.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Yes I have great interest in the LHC, the company I work for co-operates Brookhaven NL with it's own RHIC–Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and many other fascinating pure science experimental facilities. I just lack in understanding of how a lot of that stuff does what it does, it's not my area of study and we are kept very busy with what we do in support, so it's reading scientific data and trying to make sense of it, or spend more down time with my wife and granddaughter, and an occasional drinkypoo.

One thing I would like explained to me is how they cool the protons to near absolute zero and how they separate the protons from the atoms is less understood by me than how they accelerate the protons to near c. The imaging equipment and sensors are just amazing examples of advanced technology people say has not advanced since the Apollo days.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dreadphil
 


Time does not pass in the photon's perspective but indeed does pass in our perspective (the speed we are going), so it is the photon that may not see us, not visa versa. But alas, what in tarnation IS a photon? If directed to me, I have to answer, "Good Question", or something like pure energy, it can transfer that energy as heat, among other things so the photon does indeed exist.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
One question i'd like to throw out to you people- A light photon has never been proven to have mass; but what of lighted fusion plasma? For example: A solar flare ejected from a star during a solar storm. Does the solar plasma flare have mass?


Thanks for the excellent thread, but I have to sign off.

Erno86



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join