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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Also do not forget about the event horizon of a black hole. This solar system wouldn't even exist anymore if there was a black hole inside the sun.

Link:en.wikipedia.org...

To the OP, I would suggest going groups.google.com... and get your questions answered by astrophysicist and self taught cosmologist. They will be able to give the most information about about your idea.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I was under the impression that it took the enormous pressure of a supernova to fuse iron into elements heavier than iron. The iron builds up in the core until the star's fussion potential gets too weak to overcome the gravity caused by the iron buildup. The star collapses, explodes in a supernova and it is at this time that the heavier elements are made. Not while a star was still functioning. I could be completely wrong though.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by twinmommy38
I was under the impression that it took the enormous pressure of a supernova to fuse iron into elements heavier than iron. ..... I could be completely wrong though.
You're not completely right, and not completely wrong. You're 50% right and 50% wrong. The process you describe is called the r process which accounts for 50% of isotopes of elements heavier than iron.

So that is one method of heavy element production, but not the only one. The other method is called the s-process


The S-process or slow-neutron-capture-process is a nucleosynthesis process that occurs at relatively low neutron density and intermediate temperature conditions in stars. ....

The S-process produces approximately half of the isotopes of the elements heavier than iron, and therefore plays an important role in the galactic chemical evolution. The S-process differs from the more rapid R-process of neutron-capture by its slow rate of neutron captures.
The s-process can produce some elements heavier than iron like barium and lead, but not the heaviest elements like uranium; the r-process you described is needed to produce uranium.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Is this any relation to black hole sun. www.youtube.com... I find this interesting that you have a thread about this. I think this is totally related. You know about the dwarf star? OH, please tell me more, i would definately like to hear your thoughts on this. You know, everyone knows this this thing is comming.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thank You for the information. I was not aware of the second type of element creation above iron.

I will take batting .500 any day



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for the link.

Perhaps all of this opposition to my theory is an indication that I really don't understand what I am talking about. I'll stop propagating this idea for now until I come up with some more substance. Thanks everyone for helping me out with this one.
edit on 14-9-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by twinmommy38
Thank You for the information. I was not aware of the second type of element creation above iron.
You're welcome. I wasn't always aware of the second type either. Someone taught me, so I'm passing along the knowledge to others. You can pass it along too!



Originally posted by smithjustinb
Thanks for the link.

Perhaps all of this opposition to my theory is an indication that I really don't understand what I am talking about. I'll stop propagating this idea for now until I come up with some more substance. Thanks everyone for helping me out with this one.
You're quite welcome and thanks for considering my advice. That new physics textbook is a lot more interesting than my introductory physics textbook so if you decide to study it, I hope you enjoy it.

There's another guy who thinks there's a black hole in the sun. I think you're smarter than him because you considered feedback on your idea, which the other guy failed to do.


Sometimes we need to go back to the drawing board and revise our ideas until they are consistent with observation. Even top scientists have to do this.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


As far as I know blackholes devour light .

That being said the sun wouldn't exist and neither would we .



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Mr. smithjustinb, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent postwere you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Perhaps all of this opposition to my theory is an indication that I really don't understand what I am talking about. I'll stop propagating this idea for now until I come up with some more substance.

Now I AM impressed with you! That is one of the most intelligent posts I have seen on ATS! It also demonstrates a lot of character!


That said, please accept my apology for the following comment:

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!

Thank you for showing that I was wrong!

See ya,
Milt
edit on 15-9-2011 by BenReclused because: Add a "Thumbs Up"



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I dont think so I heard somwhere (everywhere) that light cannot escape the pull of a black hole.........



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by smithjustinb
 

Our sun cannot even turn into a black hole. It will first grow to red giant before it finally dies and turns into a white dwarf.


At which point the energy going out would overcome the energy going in.


oh my god. this is so simple i almost didnt post. the sun will never become a black hole according to current physics. the sun does not have enough mass to be able to collapse in on itself thereby creating the "rip in space\time."

"Robert Oppenheimer and others predicted that neutron stars above approximately three solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit) would collapse into black holes for the reasons presented by Chandrasekhar, and concluded that no law of physics was likely to intervene and stop at least some stars from collapsing to black holes.[13]

Gravitational collapse occurs when an object's internal pressure is insufficient to resist the object's own gravity. For stars this usually occurs either because a star has too little "fuel" left to maintain its temperature through stellar nucleosynthesis, or because a star that would have been stable receives extra matter in a way that does not raise its core temperature. In either case the star's temperature is no longer high enough to prevent it from collapsing under its own weight (the ideal gas law explains the connection between pressure, temperature, and volume).[69]
The collapse may be stopped by the degeneracy pressure of the star's constituents, condensing the matter in an exotic denser state. The result is one of the various types of compact star. Which type of compact star is formed depends on the mass of the remnant—the matter left over after changes triggered by the collapse (such as supernova or pulsations leading to a planetary nebula) have blown away the outer layers. Note that this can be substantially less than the original star—remnants exceeding 5 solar masses are produced by stars that were over 20 solar masses before the collapse.[69]
If the mass of the remnant exceeds about 3–4 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit[13])—either because the original star was very heavy or because the remnant collected additional mass through accretion of matter—even the degeneracy pressure of neutrons is insufficient to stop the collapse. After this, no known mechanism (except possibly quark degeneracy pressure, see quark star) is powerful enough to stop the collapse and the object will inevitably collapse to a black hole.[69]
This gravitational collapse of heavy stars is assumed to be responsible for the formation of stellar mass black holes. Star formation in the young universe may have resulted in very heavy stars, which upon their collapse would have produced black holes of up to 103 solar masses. These heavy black holes could be the seeds of the supermassive black holes found in the centers of most galaxies.[70]
While most of the energy released during gravitational collapse is emitted very quickly, an outside observer does not actually see the end of this process. Even though the collapse takes a finite amount of time from the reference frame of infalling matter, a distant observer sees the infalling material slow and halt just above the event horizon, due to gravitational time dilation. Light from the collapsing material takes longer and longer to reach the observer, with the light emitted just before the event horizon forms delayed an infinite amount of time. Thus the external observer never sees the formation of the event horizon; instead, the collapsing material seems to become dimmer and increasingly red-shifted, eventually fading away. previous articles are borrowed from wikipedia with my thanks and appreciation...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BriggsBU
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Mr. smithjustinb, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent postwere you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


I'm not billy madison, and this isn't the academic decathlon.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I think a lot of people would be advised to read more of the thread (which it's only 3 pages so it's not asking for much) before posting. The 'debate' so to speak, has been put to bed.

---------------------------------

Additonal info for the OP - While we cannot directly observe black holes, we can observe their effects on the regions around them. While this may seem severely limiting, we can still learn a great deal about an object this way and this is actually how we calculate masses on objects by observing how they respond and react to other objects nearby. So we can tell how massive the sun is fairly accurately since we have the whole solar system to measure it with.

For a black hole to be created, an object would have to compress all of its mass beyond what is known as the Schwarzschild radius. It's a calculation of the size that a particular mass would have to compress down to for the escape velocity to exceed the speed of light.

Sol's Schwarzschild radius is a little under 2 miles. That means the entire mass of the sun, would have to compress beyond that point. For a little fun fact, the Earth has a Schwarzschild radius of only 9mm, though the density of the Earth at that size probably isn't achievable by any known method.

If you want to read about our galaxy's central supermassive black hole, you can look up the wiki page for Sgr A*. It's currently estimated as weighing in with somewhere around 4 million solar masses with a radius approximately equal in size to Uranus' orbit (this is of course calculated using nearby stars, most notably a star referred to as S2)

It's definitely a good thing to be open to learning about these things. So many seem to be locked up in the whole "I don't care about evidence...I just know I'm right" and forget that to 'know' means to have knowledge, which a gut feeling is not.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



suns are white holes... were do you think all the energy that goes into black holes goes....



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Actually, the energy of stars comes from nuclear fusion. More specifically the fusion of hydrogen into helium. When the hydrogen fuel begins to run out in the sun, the outer layers will expand until it is able to start fusing helium into carbon which will be the red giant phase. As was stated in the thread previously, the sun will end its existence as a white dwarf when it has exhausted its ability to sustain fusion.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Dashdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrOysterhead
Since I am still here and able to reply to this thread I would say no.

2nd line

hey look, another person who doesn't know anything about black holes!!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
not a bad idea im sure u got tons of post about how the sun can't be a black hole but i read somewhere the a small mountain range can be a black hole if compressed enof since a blackhole in infinate density. I think hawking was the one who said a blackhole doesn't need to be super massive just infinaly dence.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Black hole sun,
Won't you come
and wash away the rain?

Black hole sun,
won't you come?
Won't you come?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


And yet the words were extremely appropriate. You obviously have no understanding of.. well, anything that you were trying to speak on.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join