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.

 

Could There Be A Black Hole In The Sun?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


well I cant really argue with that. they are just theories.

I guess what I am saying is that if you are correct then the current popular theories are way off.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Force and energy are not the same, yet you handily interchange them to justify your conclusions. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

You also stated that when a star explodes, it becomes a black hole. That is false conclusion. A star would need much more mass than our Sun currently has, to become a black hole.

Unless you are referring to the "miniature black holes" that some scientists feel may exist, the Sun does not contain a black hole. If it did, it would, in fact, be a black hole, and not a star.

You did not propose a theory! All you did was ask yourself a few questions, and then answered them with your own, made up, and convenient, statements.

I am not a scientist, but my logic indicates that you are not qualified to offer such theories.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 14-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
OP, do you have any data to suggest that the existing model is wrong?


How about the fact that we don't really know what gravity is.


If so, what anomalies does your hypothesis explain that the existing theory cannot accommodate for, i.e. what specifically is wrong with the existing model, where is the data to demonstrate it and how does your hypothesis resolve it?


I am mostly a speculative theorist. That's usually all I have to bring to the table. So I can speculate that what is wrong with the existing model is that includes gravity but fails to identify what it is. So I speculated that gravity is the result of an internal black hole caused by nuclear fusions above the mass of iron doing the pulling, while nuclear reactions below the mass of iron are doing the pushing.

So I'm saying that black holes are nuclear reactions of elements heavier than iron so that instead of producing electromagnetic radiation it absorbs it so that it appears black.

And white dwarfs are nuclear reactions of elements lighter than iron.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Scientific theories are not "just theories", they are backed up with a mountain of scientific facts. OP, what data is there to suggest that the existing model is wrong and how does your hypothesis resolve the anomalies?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Again, what specifically is wrong with the existing model, considering it is backed up with scientific facts? What actual observational data do you have that refutes the existing model?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Scientific theories are not "just theories", they are backed up with a mountain of scientific facts. OP, what data is there to suggest that the existing model is wrong and how does your hypothesis resolve the anomalies?


I was just trying to shoot him down politely. I know that the OP is just making this stuff off the top of his head.

But if there ever was a scientific theory that could be completely off base then it is about black holes. We can't observe and compile a "mountain of facts" from light years away.

That being said.....i DO support the current scientific theories about black holes.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


So I speculated that gravity is the result of an internal black hole caused by nuclear fusions

Really? Doesn't that dismiss the KNOWN attractive force of small, free floating, particles in space? To do that, is to deny the existence of damn near everything in our universe!

It's more than obvious that you didn't want "help" with your "theory". All you wanted to do was:
Feel that we were impressed with your proposal.

I'm sorry, but you failed miserably!

See ya,
Milt

edit on 14-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Regardless of our understanding of black holes, we have a pretty darn good idea of how stars work. I'm all good for speculation with the facts, but the OP is speculating against them. Seems a bit silly unless he can substantiate his speculation and kept it within the realm of factual understanding.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It doesn't seem possible that a white dwarf could produce heat for as long as wikipedia says it could without undergoing some kind of nuclear reaction instead.

That time period is 10^19 years AT LEAST.

So white dwarfs can produce heat for that long by just "stored thermal energy"? I don't buy it.
edit on 14-9-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

There is no medium to absorb the heat, it's not like a hot cup of tea in a cold, oxygen filled room. The only way for heat to escape is through radiated energy into the vacuum of space, and the white dwarf will be very, VERY dense and hot to begin with, so it will take a very long time considering the interior temperature is 10^7 kelvin.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Regardless of our understanding of black holes, we have a pretty darn good idea of how stars work. I'm all good for speculation with the facts, but the OP is speculating against them. Seems a bit silly unless he can substantiate his speculation and kept it within the realm of factual understanding.


touche.

I am normally one to berate a poster who clearly doesnt know what they are talking about and cant see that. But I was trying something different this time.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Yeah, I'm not trying to bite your head off so appologies if it came across that way.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
Force and energy are not the same, yet you handily interchange them to justify your conclusions. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

Milt
edit on 14-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling


Electromagnetic energy radiates from a star by a gravitational force fusing nuclei together of elements that are lighter than iron.

E=mc^2

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Since you are producing energy in a star, you are effectively producing mass.

So I guess what I'm saying is that matter condenses with the heaviest elements on the inside and the lightest ones on the outside. The heavier ones are pulling on each other until eventually hydrogen gets pulled so close to hydrogen that it forms helium. At that point, the electromagnetic energy emitted also creates a proportional electromagnetic mass that condenses in the center of the star and begins to fuse even heavier elements together, until eventually the energy created becomes so great that the mass is enough to fuse the elements heavier than iron together, at which point the energy you are absorbing into a singularity of high mass will be equal and opposite to the energy you are producing.

How about this:

When elements heavier than iron are fused, there is an electromagnectic energy absorption so should that not cause an electromagnetic mass exertion? So then you have a local gravity caused by the mass of particulate matter and you have a foreign gravity caused by electromagnetic mass.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused

It's more than obvious that you didn't want "help" with your "theory". All you wanted to do was:
Feel that we were impressed with your proposal.

edit on 14-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling


You're wrong.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It doesn't seem possible that a white dwarf could produce heat for as long as wikipedia says it could without undergoing some kind of nuclear reaction instead.

That time period is 10^19 years AT LEAST.

So white dwarfs can produce heat for that long by just "stored thermal energy"? I don't buy it.
edit on 14-9-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

There is no medium to absorb the heat, it's not like a hot cup of tea in a cold, oxygen filled room. The only way for heat to escape is through radiated energy into the vacuum of space, and the white dwarf will be very, VERY dense and hot to begin with, so it will take a very long time considering the interior temperature is 10^7 kelvin.


But isn't that the way all heat is transferred? Through the vacuum of space. During the transferring, the body is losing its heat and transferring it to another body.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


no worries

2nd line



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Interesting thought....

All is manufactured using the "Opposites"...

So where does Matter and Anti-Matter come into this ???

Is there a connection ???



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I was taught that a black hole forms when the sun loses all its energy and collapses. If a blackhole existed in the sun how would the light emit outwards? I think a sun is the opposite of a blackhole, and if/when a star ever dies out then it creates a blackhole. Or not, how should I know.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
This man has a lecture on exactly that

Nassim Haramein.

I suggest you watch ALL of it.

www.paramacxa.nl...



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Think spent fuel, Fukushima, half life of several billion years. Takes a long time to cool. Now consider the mass difference in a few hundred rods and an earth with the mass of the sun.

Also that part about the sun pushing us towards the earth in the day and drawing us to the sun during the night is self contradictory. It's about gravity and the inverse-square law. It's just the earth holding you on the surface.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by BenReclused
Force and energy are not the same, yet you handily interchange them to justify your conclusions. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

Milt
edit on 14-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling


Electromagnetic energy radiates from a star by a gravitational force fusing nuclei together of elements that are lighter than iron.

E=mc^2

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Since you are producing energy in a star, you are effectively producing mass.
You're just compounding your initial errors with more errors. As Ben said, force and energy are not interchangeable. In your clarification, you confuse more terms and definitions which are also not interchangeable.

The "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" refers to classical laws of motion, it is not related to energy production. And you've got the interpretation of E=mc^2 completely backwards. When a star produces energy, it doesn't produce mass, it "consumes" mass but since e=mc^2 says mass and energy are conserved, the "consumed" mass is actually converted to energy.

The biggest problem I have with your approach is this: You're not trying to understand why the current models make the predictions they do, and how those predictions are confirmed with measurements.

Then you make up something completely different, and don't even try to show how it explains observations better than the current model, rather, in explaining your model you highlight some lack of understanding of basic concepts of physics like the differences between force and energy, classical laws of motion, interpretation of e=mc^2, etc.

Here's my advice: Go to this link: www.e-booksdirectory.com...

Download the free physics textbook. Read it. Study it. Understand why it says what it does and how the basic principles described are supported by observations. Once you understand that, you can then try to explain how your model explains observations better than the standard model, if you still think your ideas have merit. But since you are now lacking an understanding of basic physics, you are just highlighting your lack of knowledge in the convoluted answers that try to support your hypothesis. Other posters have tried to tell you this and I don't know if it's sinking in but you need some tough love and encouragement to learn some basics, and certainly you should get no encouragement to keep spinning completely unsupported ideas.

But if you ever come up with an idea which is supported by evidence, that's what the world needs. You have simply presented no evidence to support your idea, and there are mountains of evidence to support the existing model your idea is trying to compete with.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join