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.
I was wondering for more of a physical description as well, is it like a hollowed out sphere of sorts, the event horizon being its edge, I say hollow because thats what the term hole, has always implied to me,
poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr
Again, all you are doing is dodging the question.
I repeat, What force is pushing and pulling electrons through a wire?
All you are doing is repeating a point about current theory of physics that I had already pointed out.
You are the one confused.
poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I don't know if they made an explanation but I can explain what is self evident except for the meaning of the dotted lines which I'm guessing at.
So you are just guessing at what is illustrated here. You don't know what data was used to create this illustration that supports the theory of a black hole at the center of our galaxy, an illustration created by people who believe a black hole exists at the center of our galaxy.
An illustration is what they think they are seeing, not what they are actually observing.
Astronomers stopped looking through telescopes decades ago, so in that sense they don't "see" any of their observations.
poet1b
So you are just guessing at what is illustrated here. You don't know what data was used to create this illustration that supports the theory of a black hole at the center of our galaxy, an illustration created by people who believe a black hole exists at the center of our galaxy.
An illustration is what they think they are seeing, not what they are actually observing.
What I didn't know was that they had discovered a second star which completed an orbit, so I guess I don't mind doing your googling for you when I learn something new and interesting like that:
The Keck telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii has been used since the mid-1990s to systematically probe the area surrounding the centre of the Milky Way. In doing so, astronomers revealed several stars that appear to be orbiting a central object dubbed Sgr A* ("Sagittarius A Star"). From measurements of the stars' orbital characteristics, it was calculated that Sgr A* must weigh in at around four million times the mass of the Sun. The only known astrophysical object that could be so massive, yet exist in such a small space, is a black hole.
However, only the orbit of one star – S0-2 – had data covering its entire 16.5 year journey around the centre.
Here's the graphic showing the orbits of S0-2 and S0-102:
, astronomers, including Andrea Ghez at the University of California, Los Angeles, have revealed the discovery of a new star named S0-102. "The orbital period of this star is just 11.5 years – the shortest of any star known to orbit the black hole," Ghez told physicsworld.com.
Thanks for that link. It's actually more about the gas cloud but I was wondering what was going on with that so I appreciate reading more about it. My German is a little rusty so I had to use the translator but it translated pretty well.
dragonridr
Your looking at 16 years of observational data its not a guess. Here is the site for the Max planck institute they are the ones that did the research.Now if the orbits of those stars are not circling a black hole than what could it possibly be having the mass of millions of stars? Just holding my breath to hear this theory.
www.mpe.mpg.de...
The event horizon is a mathematical construct. There's nothing actually at the event horizon so no, it's nothing like a hollowed out sphere.
ImaFungi
I was wondering for more of a physical description as well, is it like a hollowed out sphere of sorts, the event horizon being its edge, I say hollow because thats what the term hole, has always implied to me, but would it be more appropriate to think of it as a physically massive body, like a star or earth, like a semi solid mass of sorts but just 'black'?
Yes, except I wouldn't call them imaginary, though they are theoretically massless like photons. Just because something has no mass doesn't make it imaginary; the fact you're reading this shows that photons aren't imaginary.
If 90 percent of the mass of neutron star is not in the quarks what is it in (electrons or will you say I forgot the word, imaginary particles like gluons?)?
I suspect we all have "stream of consciousness" thoughts, but most of us try to take those and filter them into something more coherent when we posit thoughts and ideas, especially physicists who try to do so using mathematics. There's probably some good ideas in there somewhere but unless you can distill it into something that can be expressed mathematically, or otherwise more clearly, it's hard to understand exactly what you mean.
Is it possible that the 'dense energy/matter' of a black hole, and please believe I just got a sort of chills that there must be something to this, and ive thought of it before but never in exactly the confident way as right now, that I have always stressed the need to firmly believe that space is an energetic medium if one wants to believe general relativity and the theory of the (perhaps dense) energetic medium of space being curvable and 'strong enough' to contain bodies in its warpedness, one must firmly believe just that. So could it be that black holes are an interaction of 'space' the gravity field under a highly novel circumstance, a twisting and torquing and densifying and compounding of such an extent as to create a sort of 'dense material object composed predominately of space'? Well also probably composed of other stuff that gets trapped in it, and maybe even turns baryonic matter into the material of the energy field of space.
Rotation is one of the few things the "no hair theorem" cares about so it's theoretically important. However I think it's got nothing to do with light not being emitted, that's just a function of the escape velocity in such a strong gravitational field. When we observe radiation from black holes, it's probably synchrotron radiation from gas clouds and such outside the event horizon, or something like that.
Also its possible light doesnt emit from a black hole, because its rotating so fast all the light that is emitted is 'spread' out in the highest of Doppler affect, it could even be that the super massive black hole is entirely responsible for background radiation.
For the milky way, the estimated mass of 4 million suns is relatively wimpy, less than .01 of the galaxy with over a hundred of billion stars. But NGC1277 is intriguing with perhaps the largest portion of its mass in the black hole of any galaxy I know of, and it's about 14 %.
I am just wondering how come it appeared the stars were able to come so close and not get dragged in, if it is so massive and gravitational, how they didnt get sucked in and destroyed after appearing to orbit a relatively very small point. The point that is suppose to keep a decent amount of the entire galaxy in its gravitational sphere.
The math is about the same for objects orbiting stars or orbiting black holes. It's just the numbers that get plugged into the equation are larger.
My question was regarding the gravitational extent of the super massive black hole at a distance from 'its center or its event horizon'. The whole mass and square of the distance thing.
It's widely suspected to be vacuum energy, but the unsolved problem is that theory so far hasn't been shown to predict the observed value, in fact we can get various things from our theory which aren't even close to observation, so the theory obviously needs some work.
What is the scientific theory on what dark energy is or how it was created?
What problems did you point out with the source? Seems to me like the only problem you pointed out was with your ability to interpret it.
poet1b
It's not me being lazy, when I point out the problems with your source.
That is sort of addressed in the source, which as I already said explains they are fairly confident of an orbit when it's more than 50% complete. As the amount of the orbit observed falls further and further below 50%, the confidence in the orbit gets lower and lower, and when only a very small curvature is observed it may not be an orbit at all.
Notice the statement "appears to be orbiting". At what degree of uncertainty?
dragonridr
You would have a mass sitting there just compressed into a smaller space ive always figured that due to the immense pressure it must generate a lot of heat we just cant tell.
As for CMB no its not from black holes or we wouldnt see it everywhere we look. But i am considering your compressed space idea see what got me thinking is we can have curved space but does space itself have a density that can be compressed. Hmmm id have to think on that one for a while my knee jerk reaction would be to say no but interesting to consider if space can indeed be bent is that a form of compression of space?
Arbitrageur
To be honest with you, I have a hard time conceptualizing the density of a neutron star, where a teaspoon of matter has about the same mass as Mount Everest. Even that is an almost unimaginable density to get my mind around. Since a black hole is even more dense, it's even harder to wrap my mind around.
ErosA433
Well, not existing is one thing. Id say that a compact object like a Black Hole, as described by putting so much mass in once place that its density dictates an event horizon like imaginary surface is completely possible.
We already know of two types of compact objects, White dwarfs and Neutron stars and have models for their formation that work quite nicely and can be tested. Theoretically there is a limit to the neutron degeneracy pressure and when we look for neutron stars with masses greater than this limit we see a stark absence.
What exactly the form of the material is on the inside is an open question, it is likely not a singularity and something else takes over as a degeneracy pressure that holds the object up so to speak. maybe it is a quark - gluon fluid that is degenerate so physically the material looks like a bound state of many many many billions of trillions of trillions of quarks and gluons.
It is also estimated that some of the gamma ray bursts we see are coalescing neutron stars, that cross the threshold, spit out a crap tonne of energy as the stars combine and then collapse.
originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by poet1b
What is force ok ill play its the push or pull on an object from interaction with another object. Are you playing with definitions again we all know you like to do that?
originally posted by: KrzYma
originally posted by: dragonridr
reply to post by poet1b
What is force ok ill play its the push or pull on an object from interaction with another object. Are you playing with definitions again we all know you like to do that?
this is the result of force not what it is !
what is force two electrons exchange with each other ?
(ups... question could be a hint )
originally posted by: poet1b
It was my opinion decades ago, that if there is such a thing as a black hole, then one was probably at the center of the Milky Way, long before this became a popular idea., but I am still skeptical that there is such a thing as a black hole.