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.
Originally posted by St Udio
just a thought.... what if the Iron atoms and other elements that are found in the ejected cloud which extends 100,000 light-years around the black-hole never actually made it into the black-hole itself...
but was blasted or otherwise ejected away from the event-horizon before all that atomized matter got
into the death grip of the black-hole.
its my understanding that Suns or Planets that get sucked into a black-holes event horizon get totally deconstructed/pulverised into atomic particles...and do not just fall into the black-hole as a solid,
physical mass -> think of comet shoemaker-levy as an analog of a solid body breaking up
into a stream of material while falling into the comparatively weak gravitation of a gas-giant Planet ---
What would have that comet been like approaching a black-hole --?
i'd guess it would become a stream of ionized gas & atomic particles at the several light-year distance
of the event-horizon before entering the black-hole proper.
Originally posted by CordDragonzord
So instead of sucking in energy and materials it's ejecting energy and materials?
Interesting.
Originally posted by Devern
Could this be the "exit" from another black hole?edit on 23-3-2011 by Devern because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by USAisSatanic
gives more credence that theory of relativity is flawed , and at worst ,utter bollocks .
and yet we have people who think what the textbooks and authorities tell them is right .
Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by XPLodER
Hmmm, interesting. The author of the paper in the first comment does appear to be challenging the proton-proton chain theory of nucleosynthesis in our Sun. Which, in a sense is good news since iron is considered to be the last stage product currently.
I have no problem with a theory that proposes our solar system being the results of a remanent SN. The coalescing model always bothered me, i.e. the heat could be accounted for, but sufficient pressure?
Astronomers have found the first evidence of a magnetic field in a jet of material ejected from a young star, a discovery that points toward future breakthroughs in understanding the nature of all types of cosmic jets and of the role of magnetic fields in star formation.
Radio-Infrared Image of IRAS 18162-2048
Radio jets emitted by young star shown in yellow
on background of infrared image from Spitzer
Space Telescope. Yellow bars show orientation of
magnetic field in jet as measured by VLA. Green bars
show magnetic-field orientation in the dusty envelope
surrounding the young star. Two other young stars are
seen at sides of the jet.
CREDIT: Carrasco-Gonzalez et al., Curran et al.,
Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF, NASA
Throughout the Universe, jets of subatomic particles are ejected by three phenomena: the supermassive black holes at the cores of galaxies, smaller black holes or neutron stars consuming material from companion stars, and young stars still in the process of gathering mass from their surroundings. Previously, magnetic fields were detected in the jets of the first two, but until now, magnetic fields had not been confirmed in the jets from young stars.
"Our discovery gives a strong hint that all three types of jets originate through a common process," said Carlos Carrasco-Gonzalez, of the Astrophysical Institute of Andalucia Spanish National Research Council (IAA-CSIC) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
Originally posted by TheRemedial
Maybe it explodes and then over millions of years comes back together (magnetism) albeit, a little smaller than the original and then reignites because there is an energy in certain spots that is constant. When the iron masses together again it gets heated by the currents in space and a new sun is born from out of the old sun.
The ejected material from the original (depending on how far it was thrust out) forms the basis of asteroids and new planets. These planets must all be magnetic at some level and they are drawn back into the sun.
Rinse and repeat.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Always good to see old ideas get called into question.
Really the truth I think is that we humans really don't know much about anything lol.
Sounds kind of like a super-massive galactic recycling plant ? Also I wonder how we could tie this into microverse/macroverse ideas?
You could go anywhere with things like this. That's whats so fun about thinking about weird inexplicable subjects like that.
Super deep questions and faint observations like this can help us find a unified field theory perhaps.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Char-Lee
It seems that nothing can come out of a black hole, so I don't see the comparison to a recycling plant.
The iron in this article and the x-ray jets are NOT emanating from the black hole itself (i.e., not from within the event horizon, which is the point that nothing can escape the hole's gravity). The iron is stuff that was already there in the accretion disk.
The accretion disk is NOT within the event horizon, therefore the materiel can escape the hole's gravity. The X-ray jets are also outside the event horizon and (as I pointed out before) are the energy released due to the friction caused by the fast-spinning accretion disk.
Again, the important thing here is that nothing is emanating from the black hole itself -- just from the stuff that surrounds the black hole.
edit on 3/23/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Char-Lee
It seems that nothing can come out of a black hole, so I don't see the comparison to a recycling plant.
Originally posted by mespen
reply to post by XPLodER
Could this be some kind of 'galactic-supernova'? Or the creation of a new galexy?
Our own galaxy is about 100 000 light years in diameter, this black hole is spitting out atoms to a similer distance.
Light from NGC 6051 would reach our planet a long long time before any other 'info'.
Could it be that our opticle telescopes are seeing an infant galexy thats hundreds of thousands of years old?, but radio telescope are picking up the creation of this galexy due to the distance that it takes to recieve readings?
We can still pick up background radiation from the supposed 'big-bang', so, can we really rely on what is seen and what is measured to be both in the same equation?
How can you say on one hand "nothing can come out of a black hole", then on the other hand have the big bang theory?