Researchers find 'structure' in black hole accretion disk

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Absolutely, any time I can share my knowledge I am absolutely happy to do so. If you're interested in the subject I suggest doing your own research as I'm presenting the information I have absorbed, and the understanding I took from it. There is plenty of information about this subject I am unaware of, if you can struggle through some of the more complicated lingo I do suggest the read. Even if only a wiki page.


Oh believe me I most certainly plan too. I don't sleep anyways so why not learn a thing or two. The greatest thing you could ever gain is knowledge and I try to soak up as much as possible




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hijinx
 




The gravity alone would likely crush you to bits long before you got to the event horizon, let alone in the black hole itself.

Nope, no crushing. The opposite. Tidal forces would tear you apart (see "spaghettification").
But this applies to stellar sized black holes which would have an extreme gravity gradient outside the event horizon. Supermassive black holes are another story but you still would have to deal with all that accreted material doing nasty things all around you.


Nice snag Phage, I suppose crushed to bits was a bad choice of words. Pulled, pulped, eviscerated may have been better choices ha ha.

Nothing like an accretion disk full of high speed, highly reactive, charged particles to ruin your day. Isn't the resulting accretion disk due to tidal forces breaking larger objects to bits anyhow? Wouldn't you become powder before you were exposed to the hostile environment that is the accretion disk before you were immersed in it?


See i get to learn things too !!!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Isn't the resulting accretion disk due to tidal forces breaking larger objects to bits anyhow?
Not so much with a Supermassive black hole. Because the Schwarzschild radius of a such a beast is relatively large, the tidal forces at that distance are not nearly as intense as they are with less massive objects. Spaghettification wouldn't occur until passage beyond the event horizon of a supermassive object. Outside the horizon you'll encounter infalling gas, dust, even rocks.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I know exactly what this thing is.

These black holes are not natural, But they are worm hole, star jump type portals to other universes. Aliens designed them to travel through. They have the ability to hide the black holes so we don't see them coming and going.

That may sound silly but Occams Razor says I'm 100% right.
edit on 2-3-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I know exactly what this thing is.

These black holes are not natural, But they are worm hole, star jump type portals to other universes. Aliens designed them to travel through. They have the ability to hide the black holes so we don't see them coming and going.

That may sound silly but Occams Razor says I'm 100% right.
edit on 2-3-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


How does Occam's razor say you're right in any regard?


The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.


In fact it says you're more likely wrong. You're theory is based on too many variables with out any sound evidence. The current theory on Black holes has observable, verifiable data to support it's hypothesis. To date there is no proof of intelligent ET life, their technology, their knowledge or capabilities. Stating they exist is Entirely speculation, saying they are intelligent is also entirely speculation, stating they have advanced technology more speculation based off of two previous speculations, stating they created the black holes more speculation based on speculation, using them for travel the same as before, etc etc etc.

I do not disagree that life is likely abundant in the universe, I do not disagree there are likely intelligent beings, I do not disagree there are likely beings that are far superior to us in both intelligence and technology, how ever none of this has sound evidence to prove their existence yet. We have data regarding black holes, not much but data. It's obtainable, repeatable, and it's effects can be found in more than one location(more than one anomaly of the same type.)

Sure there is evidence that might suggest unknown occurrences on earth, how ever very few hold any sound credibility, and absolutely nothing guarantees they are extra terrestrial events. Simply unknown events, and eye witness reports which sometimes vary widely, and aren't exactly credible to begin with. I see a bird, you see a UFO, someone else see's a meteor, turns out to be an Airplane.

Occam's Razor has failed you, or at least you misinterpreted it.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentE
 
Maybe it's just a giant Star.
The Black hole just has not been able to eat yet.

It's just spinning around a Black hole and is very large, Black holes are not active all the time, if they have already sucked up everything close by, the Black hole has to wait till gravity brings a new meal, close enough for it to pull into it's gravity well..

The Black hole would probably love something that large to add to it's mass and I don't think Hawking's Radiation exist.
But Hawking has to have that for his open Universe theory to even begin to have a chance, he'll probably change his mind again and go back to closed Universe theory.

edit on 2-3-2013 by OOOOOO because: k



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentE
 


Nothing phisical could posibly exist at that range because even light is sucked in by the incredible gravitic attraction. I am no physicist but it seems impossible for anything constructed to exist there.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
It is probably just Chuck Norris.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
-considers it for a moment-

Clearly its a dyson's sphere!!!


Yep..its aliens.

(equally as credible with my speculation as anyone else for now)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilky
reply to post by SilentE
 


Nothing phisical could posibly exist at that range because even light is sucked in by the incredible gravitic attraction. I am no physicist but it seems impossible for anything constructed to exist there.


No. This is not true.

The matter in a black hole's accretion disk is not "in" the black hole. It is not "within the event horizon". Things in the accretion disk and outside the event horizon may be affected by the black hole's gravity, but they are not hopelessly locked to that gravitational pull.

Black holes don't suck anything and everything in that is all around it. Only things that are within the black hole's event horizon are inexorably locked in a black hole's gravity field. That event horizon is the point that nothing can escape. However, beyond the event horizon lies a zone that matter can still be orbiting the hole, but not necessarily "locked into" the hole. It would be possible for a spaceship in the accretion disk to escape the gravity of the black hole -- and light and energy.

For example -- say our Sun somehow suddenly became a black hole (while retaining its current mass). If that were to happen, the Earth and other planets would NOT suddenly be sucked into that black hole. The gravity of the black hole that was the Sun would be exactly the same as it was when it was the Sun. Therefore, the planets would continue in their current orbits.

Granted, over time (hundreds of millions of years) the "sun black hole" would continue to gain mass without loosing any mass, and it's gravitational pull would grow, and the Earth would eventually be sucked in. However, that's not relevant to the point I'm making -- and that point is the orbits of the Earth and other planets would not immediately be affected uif the Sun turned into a black hole.



HOWEVER -- having said that, a "structure" is not necessarily built by some being. A structure could be completely natural. The spiral arms of the Milky way Galaxy is a structure. A volcano is a structure.

edit on 3/2/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx

Originally posted by XxkingofosirisxX2014
The OP actually makes sense. Scientist believe you could pass through a black hole but they don't know what would happen if done so. When they show pictures of animated black holes they're always spherical and depict them as being a solid mass. Both of those theories counteract themselves. You cant pass through mass like it doesn't exist, so it would only make more sense to believe that after a star turns supernova causing a black hole and a possible rip through time and space, that it would be more or less the absence of matter and or space and possibly disc like, being plausible to be able to pass though dimensions in theory.

Just my uneducated opinion, I know no more than the next average person about the topic.


SOME scientists speculate it could be possible to pass through a black hole. It's not a universal belief, but more of a thought. We really know absolutely nothing about black holes, aside from the mathematical formulas written to suggest their existence. There is to date no definitive proof they exist, but there are anomalies in space that are best explained by the black hole theory.

Black holes are really complicated, to explain. The are not disk shaped, they are spheroids. To try to paint this picture let's take a sphere, say a baseball. The star is the baseball. Once a star has reached it's critical state, where it no longer has enough fuel to support it's fusion process, if the conditions and mass of the star are correct it will super nova, casting off it's outer most layer.

Now, here it gets kind of weird and hard to imagine. The remaining sphere becomes so dense, that it collapses with in itself. There is still matter present, how ever this star has become much more dense and smaller than it's original self in such a way that it has fallen through itself. The sphere still exists, but in another dimension with in itself. I really don't even know how to put it into words. It's moved from a three dimensional object, into a more complex shape. A sphere with in a sphere I suppose. I do not possess the words to paint this image for you I'm sorry. There is matter with mass with in a black hole. With out either of those things the gravity anomaly would not exist. The event horizon is the very edge of the gravitational influence of that mass where anything that enters can do nothing but move towards the core(the sphere with in the sphere) Appearing to disappear from existence in this dimension.( 3 dimensional universe to 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th, not sure what that sphere with in a sphere shape would fall under.)


What happens when you cross the event horizon has enormous amounts of speculation. I was reading up on black holes earlier on, and it was said it takes a finite( or set amount of time, found from speed and distance from event horizon) to reach the event horizon, how ever once you crossed that point there would be an absolute absence of time as we perceive it here, or else where in space. So for those of us observing the cross outside the black hole the object,(dust, rocks, planet, star, person.) would appear to be gone in a fraction of a second, where as the object entering would be locked in a timeless environment unaware of it's crossing into the black hole. It's really bizarre and a whole lot of these concepts and theories are hard to digest and visualize. Sure I can read them and regurgitate it. I could repeat the math, so could you but actually imagining these things is a really fantastical thought.

Any deeper than this and it's above me.
edit on 2-3-2013 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)
I'll bet a model may look something like this



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentE

Originally posted by bloodreviara
A wormhole linked power siphon for a type
4 civilization? Wonder if it could be waves
of dark matter or something like that, that's
just random guessing by a completely unqualified
person, i can't wait to find out though.


That's better than what I could come up with!


I just thought.. 'Structure' = Spaceship


Yeah, just like object = unicorn



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I don't think around a black hole would be a prime spot for a Dyson sphere. Any guessing at what it would be would be that.. guessing. Could it be natural? Could be. Created by a race of beings? Also just as likely imo. The sheer gravitational power of a black hole is astounding. If you could somehow harness that power, wouldn't that be amazing? If WE could harness the power of a black hole safely, would we? Yea, we probably would.

So sure.. could aliens. After all, I think most people have to admit, alien life exists. Alien life much more advanced than us also probably exists, by the simple fact that many suns are much older than ours. We are kind of newborns in the universal sense. I think there is a fine chance they are being harnessed or used by alien life. We might, some day. Only time will tell.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Two black holes orbiting each other?

We know that galaxies collide merging their stars. We know there are many multiple star systems.

Have we yet to confirm a pair of black holes orbiting each other?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Two black holes orbiting each other?

We know that galaxies collide merging their stars. We know there are many multiple star systems.

Have we yet to confirm a pair of black holes orbiting each other?


I think a binary black hole is only a theory.
In the OP we have an X-Ray Binary system with the black hole's companion being a star.
Once again, I could be wrong.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Hi hijinx

Could you provide a link for your off site quote please, regarding OR. Thanks.

I was always under the impression that the 'simplest solutions tend to be the correct ones' interpretation of Occum's Razor, was erroneous and the correct interpretation is 'the solution with the least number/amount of assumptions is usually the correct one.'

There's a massive gulf between those two interpretations.

If I'm wrong then I too have learned something today too and will no longer froth at the mouth and scream at the screen when the 'simple solution' interpretation is posted.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I ws wondering who'd mention them first. A couple of years back I read a great P F Hamilton series where dyson spheres pay a large part.

I've wondered for many years whether the universe's missing matter/mass is simply hiding behind such structures, even on scales larger than galaxies. Perhaps the great voids between the galactic filament structure of the universe are not voids at all but instead dyson structures designed not only to make efficient use of energy for the long long future, but also to hide/separate/quarantine us from them.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilky
 


That's just plain wrong. Accretion disks are not event horizons.

----

Some people might also be surprised by the fact that some black holes have low density and if you could possibly get there to within the event horizon spagettification wouldn't happen.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
im sure "structure" refers to something minor, as that far out we cant see $%^& so all they are getting is little blurry dots at best hehe, i wish they wouldnt include artist renditions and just show the blobs they find hehhehe.


but would be cool to be like a space port or something



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentE
 


I think a binary black hole is only a theory.

Well, it would be hard to spot


Just that, since objects of huge mass have huge gravity and would tend to find each other. The Universe is huge, so it must have happened before and may be happening now.

How would it be defined. The evidence it leaves in its gravitational "wake". Some galaxies have the most unique shape. Barred galaxies are two Galaxies in the throws of becoming one. Like any other gravitational attraction the masses spin tighter and tighter, until they merge.

Must be occurring out there. As we search the depths of more and more Galaxies for their hearts, I believe we will see more anomalies like this.





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join