It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Black Holes?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Soloro
you've just been sucked into my black hole

If you read that source then you know it mentions two possibilities, one of which is what I suggested of matter being accelerated toward the black hole, and neither of which is what you suggested of radiation coming from the black hole itself:

One possibility includes a particle jet from the supermassive black hole at the galactic center. In many other galaxies, astronomers see fast particle jets powered by matter falling toward a central black hole. While there is no evidence the Milky Way's black hole has such a jet today, it may have in the past. The bubbles also may have formed as a result of gas outflows from a burst of star formation, perhaps the one that produced many massive star clusters in the Milky Way's center several million years ago.
I don't really understand your thought process when you post a source which confirms my claim, fails to confirm your claim, and yet you persist in the notion that your claim is just as valid as mine.

I was trying to be tactful about your blatant short sightedness, and say we were both in more of a speculative mode by saying there was validity in what we are both bringing up or acknowledging, via an article that semi-confirmed both of our points. I even mentioned that I regarded the possibility of it being accelerated matter before you mentioned it, and furthermore, never did I once say that it was radiation from the black hole itself, and even if that were the case, what could you honestly know about that, oh wise one? You seem to want some kind of domination game, as evidenced by your accusations of my having read things, claiming I am some kind of a liar.

So, you want that game?

Do you know how to read:

[...] MAY have formed as a result of gas outflows from a burst of star formation, perhaps the one that produced many massive star clusters in the Milky Way's center several million years ago

Keyword is may.

I wasn't referring to the particle jets, which even then, the photonic interaction with the black hole is largely unknown. I was more referring to the bubbles as mentioned in the above ex-text, which you apparently glossed over (I can see why).

The entire point of this post was to speculate about this idea of photons being something like black holes. The premise of this entire thread was supposed to be just that, speculation.

So, it would seem you're right about...what again? The possibility of you being right about something I already told you I acknowledged as possible and/or probable, before you even mentioned it to me in your rather inappropriate and condescending manner?

The point is, we don't understand much about black holes. We understand some, but they, just like photons, are mostly mysterious, let alone combining the two notions. If you had stayed on topic, we could have speculated about miniature black holes, or any black hole, traveling at the speed of light as was the main point of the entire thread. Instead, here you are derailing the topic into a factual/conceptual pissing match, touting mostly contradictory arguments that involve ignoring key facts of my expressions, to continually assert this now seemingly rigid belief that my opinion is not as valid as yours.

I'm assuming now that you're going to have some retort to try and 1-up me again. The thing that's funny, is the FACT that I haven't said a damn thing wrong in this entire post, it's you making all of these staunch claims and accusations. Did you really think that the strategies of assumption and accusation serve for your 'validity'?

edit on 27-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:52 AM

Originally posted by Soloro
never did I once say that it was radiation from the black hole itself
I'm trying to figure out how I misinterpreted this:

Originally posted by Soloro
As for black hole light emissions, Im sure the size matters, but the central super massive black hole in the milky way was observed to be emitting an hourglass shaped light cloud above and below consisted of x-ray and gamma ray electromagnetism.

If you're claiming that's not a description of the radiation coming from the black hole, then ok, if you say so. But that's how I read it and I hope you can understand how I interpreted it that way.

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
I just watched the last Horizon documentary on BBC (How Small is the Universe?) and most of it was basicly CERN bragging about how they are going to purposefully make black holes, it made me remember how during the LHC defending they claimed it was impossible and now they have supposedly found the higgs now they want to do it on purpose as their next project.

In the documentary they even came out and said they were probably making black holes already and not noticing them, talk about backtracking after the fact.

Unless hawking radiation is proved beyond doubt and I've missed it I find this just absolutely stupid, I know the line will be it's perfectly safe it will vanish we have hawking radiation but I find it a crazy gamble especially when you consider Stephen Hawking has never been proven right about anything despite his fame.

Probably this won't be a popular post but I felt the need to mention it anyway.

<< 1   >>

log in