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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 29
55
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 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,


Great questions.

Next thing I expect is that they will accuse you of having problems with definitions.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

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.



Look if you cant understand how electricity works i really cant help that see everyone else here does. You refuse to read what been posted and really seem generally clueless as to science in general. Force has been explained to you i have explained how current travels and what causes it to travel. Unfortunately you dont realize that because you dont understand the principles involved.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

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.



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...



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Ok i think i understand what you asking by the way i love our conversations. Now suppose a black hole didnt curve space and could be observed. 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.However its not hollow what you're thinking of is the event horizon now this is the point where gravity becomes so intense as to curve light back on itself but you wouldnt see or even notice it any more than we see the suns gravity pulling on earth. As far as space is concerned if an object is a black hole or a star mass is mass. Like with your Pluto question you can orbit a black hole no problem. In other words say the sun did become a black hole planets would still revolve around it just as before as long as it maintained the same mass. Did make me wonder though if somewhere out there there isnt planets circling an invisible star that would be just to cool.

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?

Now as far as dark energy we see its effects but we arent sure what it is we can only speculate.Ive always seen it as a property of space itself. As we know even empty space isnt really empty. See what we define as space is unusual to say the least we know it can be created for example.So space has its own properties and is something tangible.And i know its not much of an answer but we just dont know.




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

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.
Astronomers stopped looking through telescopes decades ago, so in that sense they don't "see" any of their observations.

The telescopes are fitted with sensors that record EM radiation hitting a pixellized array, and this raw data is fed into computers. The computers process the raw data and create images so even the astronomers look at computer generated imagery. They do of course have the ability to pull up raw data, but since it just looks like a sea of numbers, presenting it graphically is helpful.

If you're too lazy to do some Googling when you weren't satisfied with my explanation, that may explain why you're too lazy to research other aspects of real science which is much harder. It's a lot easier to watch science-less EU videos where you don't have to do any real science.

Anyway I did a little Googling for you and dug this up, which gives the more precise orbital period of S02 which I estimated to be roughly 15 years; I wasn't too far off from just eyeballing the animation, but this says it's actually 16.5 years:

physicsworld.com...

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.
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:


, 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.
Here's the graphic showing the orbits of S0-2 and S0-102:


That's really interesting, I didn't know about SO-102. It will take quite a while for some of the other stars to complete their orbits though, but according to that, astronomers are fairly confident of an orbit when it's just over 50% completed, which makes sense to me.


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...
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.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's not me being lazy, when I point out the problems with your source.

Notice the statement "appears to be orbiting". At what degree of uncertainty?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

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'?
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.

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. You seem to be trying to express it in terms of things you're familiar with, which is only human therefore understandable, however, my take is it's unlike anything we are familiar with. I'm reminded of the quote from Sir Arthur Eddington that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine. So, maybe don't try too hard to think of it in terms of things you're familiar with. I have the same problem trying to think of the mass/energy density of the universe at the big bang, which is completely beyond anything we are familiar with.


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?)?
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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 %.

It's just orbital mechanics. If an object flies into the event horizon, it's not coming out. If it's going at nearly the speed of light and closely approaches the event horizon, it can orbit. If an object is not going fast enough when it approaches the black hole, it WILL get pulled in. The reason the stars we see orbiting aren't getting pulled in, is they are going fast enough to avoid that fate. Also keep in mind that with a mass of 4 million suns, probably a lot have already been pulled in, we are seeing only the survivors that didn't get pulled in.


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.
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.


What is the scientific theory on what dark energy is or how it was created?
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.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

poet1b
It's not me being lazy, when I point out the problems with your source.
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.


Notice the statement "appears to be orbiting". At what degree of uncertainty?
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.

If you take S0-16 for example, even if it was just a rogue object that suddenly changed direction in the vicinity of the black hole, it's still excellent evidence for the black hole even if it's not actually in an orbit, right?
edit on 16-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

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.


If it is constantly generating EM radiation within itself ( I dont know much about theory regarding the center of the earth but isnt it very hot and energetic, is this an exception of bodies or just one of various cases?) from new material entering it, unless you suppose it is the opposite of energetic and completely frozen solid mass, as if it is a fundamental particle with no parts to rub up against each other or interact, because the moment you are dealing with separate quantas coming in, and at different distances apart and moving relatively in regards to one another wouldnt there be EM radiation, and since we cant detect the EM radiation does this mean EM radiation is infinitely building within a black hole (besides hawkings radiation I suppose)?



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?


I never suggested black holes, I suggested from the super massive black hole. Everywhere we look meaning throughout that intergalactic space? Or solar system, if we see it throughout everywhere we look in the solar system that in no way denies my point. If we see it everywhere in galactic space, that also doesnt exactly rule out my point, but I would more so consider yours, if you explained how we know we are detecting background radiation from intergalactic space, and not from near by? If CMB is the same frequency everywhere, what measurement is used to register the distances to form the gradient or mapping of CMB? All I suggested was that it could be the black hole is rotating so quickly (like you know how quantum things move so quickly they appear solid....but now that I think of it would the black hole rotate at the same rate as the rest of the universe...most likely right, it wouldnt be doing like 5000 rotations while the entire galaxy does 1 would it, its just odd because the galaxy rotates so slowly, but I guess even from Arb's stars graphic it shows that near the center things rotate really quickly, so thats weird), that its radiation just blurs, and by the time it gets to us its just a faintly spread lull of radiation...maybe.

That answer must be yes, about space being compressed, the very idea of curved space means that, it is the same as putting a body in water (well I guess if its vacuum sealed, maybe). But the body is taking up space, that means space is being moved out of the way for it, and I suppose the gravity extent dying off with the square of the distance rule is just the disturbance evening out. But a black hole there is no evening out, because its trapped. So it could either be a black hole is a complete absence of space, the singularity is the ultimate removal of the medium of space 'touching pure nothingness' or just the densest possible conglomerate of matter/energy, which displaces the most 'space per area'. Or I dont know, like I suggested, which now I too am having trouble picturing how I did, stars and planets, billions spiraling as this group like system called a galaxy, what is this doing to the space they exist in, as we look closer and closer to the center of this galaxy, would a culmination of gravity waves drift to the center and then be swept up and collected as the collective galaxy and center is moving through intergalactic space and spinning, so it is just collecting more and more space? Like those Einstein space time demonstrations I despise because they are done in 2d and ive never seen a good explanation of 3d space curvature gravity, with the taught fabric twisted at the middle, and then a marble or something spun around the center, to imagine the galaxy imagine 4 people holding the taught fabric at the corners and someone under with their hand twisted the middle pulling it low, and as every is walking linearly they are also rotating, is there anything to make one think that to be accurate to reality the person in the center would continue to twist the center? This is kind of the idea I used to express my thoughts on dark energy and matter, this scrunching at the center, pulling space from intergalactic space, so it was like pulling the table clothe with the stars and planets being the food, not allowing them to fly off into space, or like a treadmill, and thus, adding more space and greater distance between each galaxy.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

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.


I think all that means is like what people say 'atoms are mainly empty space', that if you took you an removed all the empty space between molecules and such, you would probably be the size of a grain of sand or something. Which the main cool thing I think this made me think of is that, that empty space is really gravity field, as well as all the other fields. But im wondering if the pockets of vacuum or space field that exist within our bodies stay there, or if you move to the right and left, is the space field moving through you, like if your body was a strainer and the field was water. So the dense material of a neutron star, its removing those pockets of space, but I cant understand how it gets so dense, because you need a ton of mass to squeeze all the gravity field out from in between non densely connected material, so its not like energy is coming from outside the mass right, like two hands would force from outside a large sponge into a denser configuration, gravity suggests that because the sponge is so massive it is forced to squeeze into the densest configuration?

Oh and you mention how the mass of the black hole is very small compared to the rest of the mass of the galaxy, which means the ratio of gravity produced by the black hole is very small compared to the rest of the gravity produced by the galaxy, (and im sure dark matter is part of the answer) but where the gravitational influence of the black hole dies off (at a certain distance away from its center in the direction of all outward directions from its center) what takes over to keep the galactic matter from taking on the spiraling/circling pattern it does? If a merry go round after a certain distance from its center lost all support to anything beyond that point, everything beyond that point wouldnt continue to spin would it?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You interpreted an image as a scientific fact, this is the problem.

I suspect you don't understand rendering.

Nor do you seem to understand the concept of uncertainty.

If I hadn't known what I was looking at, I wouldn't have pointed these things out.

I'm sorry you don't understand my questions.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The inner part of the galaxy Sag A* was observed using the VLA in infrared. The images you get once taken from raw CCD hits to an image (in the same way a photocamera works) you end with a monochrome image or render where the brightness represents how much infrared light you observe.

This has been done for many years, and the motion of stars around the galactic centre observed. These movies are indeed renders or artist impressions, but they are transfers of actual data of coordinates. The pointing and accuracy of a telescope system is extremely well tuned and it is possible to take images the sky without any residual movement for long periods of time. Telescope systems tracking the sky as the Earth rotates.

Fitting orbits is something that we have a lot of practice with. When we look at an object such as an asteroid, the technique is to take many images each night or maybe weeks apart and look for objects moving against the background. Once you spot one, you use the last two images to give you a direction of travel. You then take another image a few nights later, find that same object and with those three numbers calculate a rough orbital path. With 3 points, it is extremely rough. SO the next step is to wait a longer period of time and try and find the object once more. This can be a period of weeks or months. If you find the object, then scientists can determine the orbit with a high degree of accuracy, allow them to basically wait another few months and find it once again with relative ease. Once this has been done a few more times we then know the orbit of said object accurately, and unless it has a near pass with a planet it will likely remain on that orbit dominated by the sun. Typically all orbits are Keplarian and we determine the parameters that describe an elliptical orbit dominated by the sun. Given that we have been able to track several large objects around the solar system, we have a pretty good handle on doing this.

The region around Sag A* is the same.

This shows what the data points actually look like, along with error bars. So you see that the flat field location of the star is known to within about 1 light day for the worse datapoint, and to within about 0.5 light days for the rest, sometimes even better. If you apply your formula for orbital parameters and perform a 2D Minuit chi square fit to it, what you get is a prediction of the orbit. This has produced very accurate results to the orbital parameters and scientists are sure to within a very high degree of certainty that these stars are in fact orbiting a highly compact massive object. The beauty of it is is that for every star that this tracking can be performed for will give its own determination of the mass of the central object and thus you have many measurements of the same physical parameter. This gives even better determination of what is at the centre.

Given the closeness of the pass of some of the stars (which have been mapped through a complete orbit, we know that there is no visible counterpart object at the centre.

We have evidence for Xray flares at the centre, however our xray telescopes are considerably worse resolution than infrared or optical. So saying that it comes from the Sag A* back hole is an open question. And a Question that is being looked into carefully



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Thanks for giving a excellent description of the process.

I imagine coming up with a value of uncertainty would be a very difficult number to arrive at.

Here is an article from NASA on the Spitzer space telescope. It gives raw images of what we are talking about here. I thought that this isn't all that easy, maybe I am wrong.

www.nasa.gov...

I understand the difficulties in tracking, those stars are moving in the sky a lot faster than people realize. The tiny telescope I break out every great once in a while keeps me busy trying to keep up. I especially understand the need to make many measurements if you want real accuracy.

Here is an older article on the subject, maybe with current technology, the ability to obtain better data makes the ability to evaluate these images far better than we were capable of just a few decades ago.

link.springer.com...-1

There are also many dense filamentary structures in the inner galaxy, that science currently associates with early star formation.

It seems to me that we are just starting to gain the ability to look at the inner solar system, and we still have a lot more data to collect before we lower those levels of uncertainty.

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.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Why dont you believe black holes exist? I dont think ive really ever met anyone that thought they dont exist. I knew a guy that claimed he thought they were worm holes to other parts of space but even he thought they were there.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
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.

Who knows? There are many many theories, but the possibility of a large 'dark' compact object is not so far off the handles that it cannot exist. 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.

We do also see binary star systems with invisible partners too big to be a planet. Cygnus X-1 for example

Again an open question, but not a question or statements that come with zero evidence.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

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.


OK, a simple question.

Is it possible to have a finite (but very large) density mass create an event horizon and a 'black' hole for what would otherwise be outgoing photons? Seems as if you're saying yes, but everybody has always been talking about the mystical singularity or wormhole at the black hole instead of just another high-density object.

If a neutron star is nothing but a really stupendously large nucleus, then can't a quark star be nothing but a really stupendously large hadron? LHC seems to have found 4 quark (temporarily) bound states.


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.


traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy.


edit on 17-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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 )
edit on 17-4-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   

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 )


You dont even know what definiton your looking for see your looking for exchange force not force the two are different. Well the exchange force is a photon between two electrons which generates a magnetic field. See electromagnetic forces are carried through the photon. I have a feeling you weren't aware of this so im guessing you believe differently. As i told you dont get into particle physics unless you have the background.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433
a reply to: mbkennel
a reply to: dragonridr

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.


I have a proof of the inevitability of certain types of supermassive black holes that dosn't rely on relativity. Scientists probably don't waste their time writing up proofs for relativity deniers but I came up with this idea for a black hole proof for relativity deniers when reading about NCG1277, more about that in a bit. So here is my proof of the inevitability of black holes without using relativity, just basic gravity theory.

1. We know the Earth exists. Density is maybe 5.513 g/cc which is about 5.5 times as dense as water.
2. We know gravity pulls objects together. We see objects of many different masses and hypothetically the mass of an entire galaxy could be pulled together by gravity
3. Take 611 trillion Earth-like objects, each with same mass and density as Earth, and allow gravity to pull them together into one object.
4. Make a naive assumption that gravity will collapse the spaces between the spheres and create one giant sphere with average density of 5.5 g/cc, same density as Earth (more realistically, gravity would collapse the object into something more dense)
5. The escape velocity of this object will be the speed of light at the surface.

This proves that the concept of a black hole is inescapable if you have enough mass, even without relativity. Now back to NGC1277. The supermassive black hole in this galaxy has an estimated mass of maybe 17-21 billion solar masses, with a Swarzchild radius about 11 times that of Neptune's orbit. This makes the density within the Swarzchild radius far less than that of Earth, and even less dense than water. Assuming the 17 billion solar mass figure, the density within the Swarzchild radius is only 0.064 g/cc, so only about 6% as dense as water which means there need be no singularity and no type of exotic matter for the object to be a black hole.

Of course I see strong support for relativity but I see enough relativity deniers on ATS that I thought this might come in handy when relativity deniers question whether black holes can exist. If you put 612 trillion Earths together, it's impossible for the resulting object to NOT form a black hole because the escape velocity will be greater than the speed of light. I'd like to see any relativity denier prove otherwise.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Long way to get there but i see what your doing take the density out of the equation since that can be a confusing part. Im thinking the most difficult concept of gravity for people to grasp is gravity waves,And themselves they have distinct properties. Just like waves in water they can be made bigger by joining or smaller by opposing each other depending on the waves directions. In your scenario they join to cause an event horizon.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join