I know that black holes eat everything, except that is the current theory. Supposedly nothing escapes balck holes.
I am not qualified to propose a new theory but I am interested in some comments on a theory of mine. Please keep comments simple; I cannot understand anything advanced. In particular, if you think my idea is totally crazy, then you can say so but you do not need to provide a lot of technical details; for one thing, since I won't understand any of it, it is a waste of time if you want me to get anythding from it.
I think it is possible that in the early stages of the Universe, solar systems (or the material that solar systems developed from) were released from black holes.
The main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?
This behavior might not be observable now for at least one reason. Perhaps it just does not happen any more and/or perhaps it just cannot be observed using current technology.
Many people might think that volcanoes are destructive, since they destroy so much when they erupt. In a more complete view, volcanoes create beautiful things, such as the Hawiian Islands. Perhaps black holes appear destructive in a short view of them, but the long view might show them to be creators of galaxies.
Black Holes as creators, not destroyers
Confused wrote:Thank you.
If it is true that there is a massive black hole at the center of every galaxy and if the current theories do not explain that, then it seems there is a need for newer theories.
Confuse,
If we look at all solar system, they all hav their accretion mass at the center of the system (Sun) And a few around this center (Planets). I think its the same for the galaxy. All mass goes at the center the most. (That is why there are giant black hole in most galaxy. At the creation of the galaxy (Few billion years ago), star form and then aglomerate at the center of gravity of all of them. So, most mass is at the center of gravity of that new galaxy being form. No need for a new theories then.
Doum, I do realize that I must know more about physics and such in order to fully understand the theories. If however it is possible to use terms that are more plain-language than "accretion mass" then that will really help.
I think that you are saying that there is a sun at the center of every solar system because there is always something big at the center of them. I think that there are stars as the center of solar systems because that is the definition of a solar system.
Also, if I understand what you are saying, then you are saying that it is merely coincidental that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy. Is that what you meant?
I think that you are saying that there is a sun at the center of every solar system because there is always something big at the center of them. I think that there are stars as the center of solar systems because that is the definition of a solar system.
Also, if I understand what you are saying, then you are saying that it is merely coincidental that there are black holes at the center of every galaxy. Is that what you meant?
I think that if mass is spread throught the universe in a relatively constant quantity, then current theory is reasonable. In other words, if it is relatively common for stars to exist outside galaxies and if planet-sized masses exist outside of solar systems, then it is reasonable that galaxies and solar systems formed by mass being attracted into suns, planets and galaxies. If however stars are uncommon outside of galaxies and planet-sized masses are uncommon outside of solar systems, then it seems unlikely that the universe happened in the manner that current theories say.
It makes sense to me that there is something holding galaxies together, just as gravity holds our solar system together. I think it makes sense that there is a type of gravity for galaxies, but I have not heard of any theory to explain that. Is there?
It makes sense to me that there is something holding galaxies together, just as gravity holds our solar system together. I think it makes sense that there is a type of gravity for galaxies, but I have not heard of any theory to explain that. Is there?
Confused i try to explain,
At some point in the beginning of the universe (Big bang theorie) there was no star or galaxy but just gas (Hydrogen moslty and helium.). These gas aglutinate with each other chemicaly and moslty by gravity (Because all masses create gravity, even gas.). So gas start falling on each other. The gas wasnt uniform in the univers, so it fall in many different places in the univers. The first star was create (When many gas accumulate)and the light of that new star heat and push away the remnant of the gaz that was around it and falling on it. Some gas were already aglutinate in orbit around the center point of gravity (That new start and before it ignite.). Since it happen many place at the same time some star ignite itself before other orbiting them could be create. The remnant of those accumulate gas were planet (A solar system was create). With time those new star system fall toward each other by the still gravity force it create (Stronger one cause more masses present). Some star created were so big that they became BlackHole, some became neutron star ect... . The more these star or all sort were close to each other the faster they fall toward each other. Some collide and create bigger star and other start orbiting that new center of gravity create by all those close star. A galaxy is born. The galaxy start growing and with time the center of gravity of that new galaxy became a black hole (Many gas and star falling toward that center of galaxy wich grew bigger and bigger. All galaxy were create like that and it is why there are more masses in the center of all galaxy and probably a big black hole in all their center.
So as you can see, no new theorie is needed on that particular point u made. I use plain langage the best i can for you to understand it. I hope it work. The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. If a black hole was create soon in the beginning of the univers then all matter may have start falling on and around it. Thus creating new galaxy. But the black hole did not release matter into space to create galaxy. I hope it help you. Bye
At some point in the beginning of the universe (Big bang theorie) there was no star or galaxy but just gas (Hydrogen moslty and helium.). These gas aglutinate with each other chemicaly and moslty by gravity (Because all masses create gravity, even gas.). So gas start falling on each other. The gas wasnt uniform in the univers, so it fall in many different places in the univers. The first star was create (When many gas accumulate)and the light of that new star heat and push away the remnant of the gaz that was around it and falling on it. Some gas were already aglutinate in orbit around the center point of gravity (That new start and before it ignite.). Since it happen many place at the same time some star ignite itself before other orbiting them could be create. The remnant of those accumulate gas were planet (A solar system was create). With time those new star system fall toward each other by the still gravity force it create (Stronger one cause more masses present). Some star created were so big that they became BlackHole, some became neutron star ect... . The more these star or all sort were close to each other the faster they fall toward each other. Some collide and create bigger star and other start orbiting that new center of gravity create by all those close star. A galaxy is born. The galaxy start growing and with time the center of gravity of that new galaxy became a black hole (Many gas and star falling toward that center of galaxy wich grew bigger and bigger. All galaxy were create like that and it is why there are more masses in the center of all galaxy and probably a big black hole in all their center.
So as you can see, no new theorie is needed on that particular point u made. I use plain langage the best i can for you to understand it. I hope it work. The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. If a black hole was create soon in the beginning of the univers then all matter may have start falling on and around it. Thus creating new galaxy. But the black hole did not release matter into space to create galaxy. I hope it help you. Bye
Yes, that is the classic theory. I understand it as you explained it.
You did not respond to my comments; you are simply repeating the theory independent of my comments. We are unable to discuss things if your comments are independent of my comments.
As I understand things, astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.
As I understand things, the concept of the universe beginning as only gas is a theory, but only a theory. We don't have a book that explains things and we don't have an instrument that can see what happened; the gas-only theory is a theory that can change if new evidence is discovered that is inconsistent with the current theory. So it is useless to use the gas-only beginnig theory to prove that new theories are not needed.
You did not respond to my comments; you are simply repeating the theory independent of my comments. We are unable to discuss things if your comments are independent of my comments.
As I understand things, astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.
As I understand things, the concept of the universe beginning as only gas is a theory, but only a theory. We don't have a book that explains things and we don't have an instrument that can see what happened; the gas-only theory is a theory that can change if new evidence is discovered that is inconsistent with the current theory. So it is useless to use the gas-only beginnig theory to prove that new theories are not needed.
Hi Confused, first you said,
Quote: ((I think it is possible that in the early stages of the Universe, solar systems (or the material that solar systems developed from) were released from black holes.
The main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?))
And in your last post you said,
((You did not respond to my comments;))
Yet i answer to your comments in my last post why it is not possible and i finnish with,
Quote: ((The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. If a black hole was create soon in the beginning of the univers then all matter may have start falling on and around it. Thus creating new galaxy. But the black hole did not release matter into space to create galaxy.))
Now you say,
Quote:((...astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.))
This is a complete different comments.
On that last comment, you are right. We need to improve old theories or create a new one. But the old theorie is still the best we have. And it may include "dark matter and dark energy". We will see. Theories will always evolve or change. It was good to talk to you.
Quote: ((I think it is possible that in the early stages of the Universe, solar systems (or the material that solar systems developed from) were released from black holes.
The main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?))
And in your last post you said,
((You did not respond to my comments;))
Yet i answer to your comments in my last post why it is not possible and i finnish with,
Quote: ((The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. If a black hole was create soon in the beginning of the univers then all matter may have start falling on and around it. Thus creating new galaxy. But the black hole did not release matter into space to create galaxy.))
Now you say,
Quote:((...astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.))
This is a complete different comments.
On that last comment, you are right. We need to improve old theories or create a new one. But the old theorie is still the best we have. And it may include "dark matter and dark energy". We will see. Theories will always evolve or change. It was good to talk to you.
as i am saying in my thread "
white holes funnel energy, matter and spacetime from another universe dimention or from "X" to our universe Lewis
,,, all galexies may have been created by their own white hole, and later may disappear into a black hole........Re: Not with a Big Bang but with a Woosh
white holes funnel energy, matter and spacetime from another universe dimention or from "X"
to our universe Lewismake your theories fit the facts
Is that part of current theory?lewishb wrote:all galexies may have been created by their own white hole, and later may disappear into a black hole........
About everything I know on the subject is in a Science Channel show, so I know I am very far trom being an expert. In that show, the scientists said that they must be able to explain what happened before the big bang, but they seem unconcerned about the other universe(s) that they say gravity comes from. I think they assume that gravity comes from another universe just because they can't explain gravity more accurately. It seems much more likely that we must understand dark energy better before we can explain gravity; that is, dark energy might be where gravity comes from, not another universe.lewishb wrote:white holes funnel energy, matter and spacetime from another universe dimention or from "X" :) to our universe Lewis
I have a question about gravity, but I will create a new thread for that.
Confused Quote((We have no proof of that.))
Look at this,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Spinn ... t_999.html
Confused we dont need to be there. Gravity is gravity and its the same law of physics everywhere in space and in time. Nothing can escape a black hole. That's a fact. The link is one of many study on black hole. Scientist dont talk about black hole releasing matter in space cause it is not possible. It's known since einstein write is theorie. By saying there isnt any proof is false cause there are plenty of proof. Cya.
Look at this,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Spinn ... t_999.html
Confused we dont need to be there. Gravity is gravity and its the same law of physics everywhere in space and in time. Nothing can escape a black hole. That's a fact. The link is one of many study on black hole. Scientist dont talk about black hole releasing matter in space cause it is not possible. It's known since einstein write is theorie. By saying there isnt any proof is false cause there are plenty of proof. Cya.
No there is not proof. There is plenty of evidence but no proof. The experts do not understand dark energy and dark matter.Doum wrote:By saying there isnt any proof is false cause there are plenty of proof.
You are the type of person that will never ever ever sincerely admit that there are other possibilities. I do admit that the current theories might be correct. If current theories are correct then new discoveries will help to explain and strengthen them. You however won't be flexible. I wish that people would not clutter discussions such as this and make worthwhile discussion impossible.
This thread has been made too big for anyone else to want to participate. That is very frustrating for me.
I don't expect others to agree with me, but I do want discussion. When someone instists that their way is the only way, discussion is not possible.
(my highlight)Confused wrote:No there is not proof. There is plenty of evidence but no proof. The experts do not understand dark energy and dark matter.Doum wrote:By saying there isnt any proof is false cause there are plenty of proof.
You are the type of person that will never ever ever sincerely admit that there are other possibilities. I do admit that the current theories might be correct. If current theories are correct then new discoveries will help to explain and strengthen them. You however won't be flexible. I wish that people would not clutter discussions such as this and make worthwhile discussion impossible.
This thread has been made too big for anyone else to want to participate. That is very frustrating for me.
I don't expect others to agree with me, but I do want discussion. When someone instists that their way is the only way, discussion is not possible.
You have probably come to the wrong place for this, Confused.
Back in the OP (opening post, of this thread) you said:
You see, this whole "The Asterisk*" forum is science-based*, and 'theory' in science has a specific meaning quite different from the "guess" or "idea" meaning it has in ordinary, everyday speech. So is what you have a theory (as that word is used in science)? I don't think so.I am not qualified to propose a new theory but I am interested in some comments on a theory of mine. Please keep comments simple; I cannot understand anything advanced.
Second, astronomy is, top to bottom, a quantitative science. What does this mean, in terms of how ideas become hypotheses which in turn may become theories? One thing it means is that ideas need to be expressed in a way that they can be quantified, if they are to progress beyond being vague ideas. It seems that your idea is too vague to be quantified, and so I can't see how it could be tested.
Third, "black holes" are children of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR). This means that to discuss your idea one needs to be prepared to discuss GR. And one thing we can certainly say about GR is that it is most certainly "advanced".
Another thing which is important in science is testing; in the case of your idea, how do you think it could be tested?
*For more details, please read this
Confused, you said:
"You are the type of person that will never ever ever sincerely admit that there are other possibilities."
Not true. Look earlyer what you said:
"((...astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.))"
And i answer to that:
"This is a complete different comments.
On that last comment, you are right. We need to improve old theories or create a new one. But the old theorie is still the best we have. And it may include "dark matter and dark energy". We will see. Theories will always evolve or change. It was good to talk to you. "
So you can see that i am open to new theories. I just dont agree on the one you said about a black hole releasing matter into space thus creating galaxies. The law of physics are the law of physics. Black hole dont release matter back into space. It doesnt now, nor in the past and nor in the futur. I'm sorry if it disturb you but it is the way it is. And be ready to see many other in the forum answering the same way i did. Bye!
"You are the type of person that will never ever ever sincerely admit that there are other possibilities."
Not true. Look earlyer what you said:
"((...astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy.))"
And i answer to that:
"This is a complete different comments.
On that last comment, you are right. We need to improve old theories or create a new one. But the old theorie is still the best we have. And it may include "dark matter and dark energy". We will see. Theories will always evolve or change. It was good to talk to you. "
So you can see that i am open to new theories. I just dont agree on the one you said about a black hole releasing matter into space thus creating galaxies. The law of physics are the law of physics. Black hole dont release matter back into space. It doesnt now, nor in the past and nor in the futur. I'm sorry if it disturb you but it is the way it is. And be ready to see many other in the forum answering the same way i did. Bye!
Black Holes
If black holes do not exit their intake into space, where does it go?
When the BBT occurred, if this is your thought, it would have left a expanding sphere (a void) that would be filled by other matter from the black holes intake, but this would require that it is a closed universe and the BBT would only take place once. We must understand that we have only started to learn about the universe, about 2000 years which is a flash compared to cosmic time.
Question: why do most of the galaxies spin on a horizontal axis?
Peace mun
When the BBT occurred, if this is your thought, it would have left a expanding sphere (a void) that would be filled by other matter from the black holes intake, but this would require that it is a closed universe and the BBT would only take place once. We must understand that we have only started to learn about the universe, about 2000 years which is a flash compared to cosmic time.
Question: why do most of the galaxies spin on a horizontal axis?
Peace mun
Visit your animal shelter and give a loving pet a home!
Don`t trust a dog to watch your food.
Don`t trust a dog to watch your food.
Re: Black Holes
Welcome mun!mun wrote:If black holes do not exit their intake into space, where does it go?
When the BBT occurred, if this is your thought, it would have left a expanding sphere (a void) that would be filled by other matter from the black holes intake, but this would require that it is a closed universe and the BBT would only take place once. We must understand that we have only started to learn about the universe, about 2000 years which is a flash compared to cosmic time.
Question: why do most of the galaxies spin on a horizontal axis?
Peace mun
(my bold)
That's a new one on me - where you did you come across this idea?
And how did the creators if this idea determine what direction "horizontal" is?
You are in the wrong place to religiously insist that your way is the right way.Nereid wrote:You have probably come to the wrong place for this, Confused.
I am confident that the experts would see merit in what I say instead of only criticizing it.Nereid wrote:So is what you have a theory (as that word is used in science)? I don't think so.
Your implication is that if a tree falls in the forest but there is on one to hear it and there is no test equipment to detect the sound then the sound did not happen. The fact that we can't test something does not prove it does not exist. One point I am making in this thread is that we are not yet able to test/observe many things. We are able to observe much more than we were able to up until a century ago and less, but our understanding might change drastically in the future just as it has recently.Nereid wrote:Another thing which is important in science is testing; in the case of your idea, how do you think it could be tested?
True scientists are not closed-minded as you are. You can be as arogant as you feel you need to be, but that just makes you like the many critics that called astronomers in the past crazy.
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Black holes,,,,,,,,, first you need to define what a black hole is.
One definition is well with a singularity at the centre. This type of black hole does not exist.
Second definition.
Just thinking aloud.
An ultra dense degerated plasma matter that has huge amounts of heat and electromagnetic graviataional forces grater than the centre of the atomic nucleus. In order to get to this point electron shells are sucked into the nucleus changing protons to neutrons, to quarks to preon particals. By this time photons are unable to escape this super dense plasma matter.
We can look at the properties of plasma which is able to create vortexes within allowing neutral door ways to the outside. We see this in jets from many so call black holes and neutron stars ejecting degenerated matter thousands of light years into space.
It is more complicated than that,,,,,,,,,,just a summary.
You can google for the jets.
If you want links I will post them.
As for the spin of a black holes, it is a common feature in most objects of the universe.
Our solar system
Our galaxy and so on.
The disc is about 90Deg to the formation of the average position of the jets ejecting matter . This is not the norm, in active black holes the jets change positions an alter the formation and structure of the galaxy.
Thats my opinion.
Black holes,,,,,,,,, first you need to define what a black hole is.
One definition is well with a singularity at the centre. This type of black hole does not exist.
Second definition.
Just thinking aloud.
An ultra dense degerated plasma matter that has huge amounts of heat and electromagnetic graviataional forces grater than the centre of the atomic nucleus. In order to get to this point electron shells are sucked into the nucleus changing protons to neutrons, to quarks to preon particals. By this time photons are unable to escape this super dense plasma matter.
We can look at the properties of plasma which is able to create vortexes within allowing neutral door ways to the outside. We see this in jets from many so call black holes and neutron stars ejecting degenerated matter thousands of light years into space.
It is more complicated than that,,,,,,,,,,just a summary.
You can google for the jets.
If you want links I will post them.
As for the spin of a black holes, it is a common feature in most objects of the universe.
Our solar system
Our galaxy and so on.
The disc is about 90Deg to the formation of the average position of the jets ejecting matter . This is not the norm, in active black holes the jets change positions an alter the formation and structure of the galaxy.
Thats my opinion.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Confused, it takes a minute to understand how you thinkwrite
After the initial confusion, Confused has some good points.
* = ( my comments )
[#] = to be commented on at the bottom of Confused's posts which are summarily aggregated here.
Confused wrote:
I know that black holes eat everything, except that is the current theory. Supposedly nothing escapes balck holes. *(yes blackholes eat everything except theory !) haha
I think it is possible that in the early stages of the Universe, solar systems (or the material that solar systems developed from) were released from black holes. [1]
The main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?
This behavior might not be observable now for at least one reason. Perhaps it just does not happen any more and/or perhaps it just cannot be observed using current technology. [2]
Many people might think that volcanoes are destructive, since they destroy so much when they erupt. In a more complete view, volcanoes create beautiful things, such as the Hawiian Islands. Perhaps black holes appear destructive in a short view of them, but the long view might show them to be creators of galaxies.
I think that you are saying that there is a sun at the center of every solar system because there is always something big at the center of them. I think that there are stars as the center of solar systems because that is the definition of a solar system.
I think that if mass is spread throught the universe in a relatively constant quantity, then current theory is reasonable. In other words, if it is relatively common for stars to exist outside galaxies and if planet-sized masses exist outside of solar systems, then it is reasonable that galaxies and solar systems formed by mass being attracted into suns, planets and galaxies. If however stars are uncommon outside of galaxies and planet-sized masses are uncommon outside of solar systems, then it seems unlikely that the universe happened in the manner that current theories say. [3]
As I understand things, astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy. [4]
As I understand things, the concept of the universe beginning as only gas is a theory, but only a theory. We don't have a book that explains things and we don't have an instrument that can see what happened; the gas-only theory is a theory that can change if new evidence is discovered that is inconsistent with the current theory. So it is useless to use the gas-only beginnig theory to prove that new theories are not needed. [5]
<< The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. >> We have no proof of that. [6]
[1] - Yes, this is one of Dobson's first problems with BBT (big bang theory) that as soon as the universe comes into existence, it is immediately in a black hole and you can't get anything out of it. We will get back to this later.
[2] - If supermassive blackholes were strictly early universe phenomena then there are only so many of them and they are all very ancient. Interesting point !
[3] - What is the distribution of matter throughout the universe? There does seem to be something large/massive at the center of all structures; solar systems and galaxies. But what is the distribution of mass between these main observable structures? Our discovery of the Oort cloud as being a reality shows that much mass is present beyond the previously thought of planets as the totality of our solar system. Fast moving stars, gravitationally whipped by the blackholes in our galactic central region, indicate that there are very likely many objects further out from our galaxy than the easily observable large spiral arm structures and gas clouds, show the galaxy to be in its size. Does the galaxy have objects in its external vicinity that are largely not visible?
[4] - Dark Matter and Dark Energy are extrinsic teleological rationalizations to help maintain the predominance of BBT as establishment policy. The mainstream community is doing backflips to substantiate its existence by theory and observation. In my loud opinion DM and DE need to be much less stressed as fact in print. They are trying to pull a fait accompli by repetition. That is propaganda not science. And yes the question of , 'where is all that gravity coming from that galaxy motions say exists and visual light says isn't present by stars'?
[5] - Even Dobson describes the universe as gas in the beginning. That gas, "hydrogen falls together by gravity to form galaxies and stars, and everything else comes from that". You have an interesting point, What did it all come from? Was it just hydrogen gas? Protons and electrons? Or was there something else or more? We have nothing to show yea nor nay, and a more open mind would serve us better if we are ever to figure this whole thing out.
[6] - Black Hole Theory suggests that gravity is the supreme force in Nature; however, recent papers suggest that a blackhole is impossible in practicality to achieve, as it would take an infinite amount of mass to generate the forces necessary to actually create a singularity. Akin to how matter would need an infinite amount of energy to ever actually reach the speed of light, as its mass would approach infinity the faster it goes.
And so in this light, we are beginning to allow that blackholes are not that, they are massive compact objects which could very well spew physical matter deep into the surrounding vicinity, as the very energetic jets that accompany so many of the central supermassive galactic structures which observations are discovering, do exactly that.
Blackholes may be equally creators as well as destroyers. Remember, Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes its form.
These massive compact objects are doing the ultimate "Dance of Shiva" the destruction of the inflowing material, and the creation which the outflowing material allows to occur afterwards.
* = ( my comments )
[#] = to be commented on at the bottom of Confused's posts which are summarily aggregated here.
Confused wrote:
I know that black holes eat everything, except that is the current theory. Supposedly nothing escapes balck holes. *(yes blackholes eat everything except theory !) haha
I think it is possible that in the early stages of the Universe, solar systems (or the material that solar systems developed from) were released from black holes. [1]
The main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?
This behavior might not be observable now for at least one reason. Perhaps it just does not happen any more and/or perhaps it just cannot be observed using current technology. [2]
Many people might think that volcanoes are destructive, since they destroy so much when they erupt. In a more complete view, volcanoes create beautiful things, such as the Hawiian Islands. Perhaps black holes appear destructive in a short view of them, but the long view might show them to be creators of galaxies.
I think that you are saying that there is a sun at the center of every solar system because there is always something big at the center of them. I think that there are stars as the center of solar systems because that is the definition of a solar system.
I think that if mass is spread throught the universe in a relatively constant quantity, then current theory is reasonable. In other words, if it is relatively common for stars to exist outside galaxies and if planet-sized masses exist outside of solar systems, then it is reasonable that galaxies and solar systems formed by mass being attracted into suns, planets and galaxies. If however stars are uncommon outside of galaxies and planet-sized masses are uncommon outside of solar systems, then it seems unlikely that the universe happened in the manner that current theories say. [3]
As I understand things, astronomers and physicists have recently determined that the universe contains much more matter and energy than they previously knew about and they still know little about it; "dark" matter and energy. New theories are needed to include that, but we currently don't even know enough to be able to explain it. Right? I think it is necessary to say that many things that are currently believed could change when we are able to learn about "dark" matter and energy. [4]
As I understand things, the concept of the universe beginning as only gas is a theory, but only a theory. We don't have a book that explains things and we don't have an instrument that can see what happened; the gas-only theory is a theory that can change if new evidence is discovered that is inconsistent with the current theory. So it is useless to use the gas-only beginnig theory to prove that new theories are not needed. [5]
<< The gravity on a black hole is too strong to permit the release of any matter into space. >> We have no proof of that. [6]
[1] - Yes, this is one of Dobson's first problems with BBT (big bang theory) that as soon as the universe comes into existence, it is immediately in a black hole and you can't get anything out of it. We will get back to this later.
[2] - If supermassive blackholes were strictly early universe phenomena then there are only so many of them and they are all very ancient. Interesting point !
[3] - What is the distribution of matter throughout the universe? There does seem to be something large/massive at the center of all structures; solar systems and galaxies. But what is the distribution of mass between these main observable structures? Our discovery of the Oort cloud as being a reality shows that much mass is present beyond the previously thought of planets as the totality of our solar system. Fast moving stars, gravitationally whipped by the blackholes in our galactic central region, indicate that there are very likely many objects further out from our galaxy than the easily observable large spiral arm structures and gas clouds, show the galaxy to be in its size. Does the galaxy have objects in its external vicinity that are largely not visible?
[4] - Dark Matter and Dark Energy are extrinsic teleological rationalizations to help maintain the predominance of BBT as establishment policy. The mainstream community is doing backflips to substantiate its existence by theory and observation. In my loud opinion DM and DE need to be much less stressed as fact in print. They are trying to pull a fait accompli by repetition. That is propaganda not science. And yes the question of , 'where is all that gravity coming from that galaxy motions say exists and visual light says isn't present by stars'?
[5] - Even Dobson describes the universe as gas in the beginning. That gas, "hydrogen falls together by gravity to form galaxies and stars, and everything else comes from that". You have an interesting point, What did it all come from? Was it just hydrogen gas? Protons and electrons? Or was there something else or more? We have nothing to show yea nor nay, and a more open mind would serve us better if we are ever to figure this whole thing out.
[6] - Black Hole Theory suggests that gravity is the supreme force in Nature; however, recent papers suggest that a blackhole is impossible in practicality to achieve, as it would take an infinite amount of mass to generate the forces necessary to actually create a singularity. Akin to how matter would need an infinite amount of energy to ever actually reach the speed of light, as its mass would approach infinity the faster it goes.
And so in this light, we are beginning to allow that blackholes are not that, they are massive compact objects which could very well spew physical matter deep into the surrounding vicinity, as the very energetic jets that accompany so many of the central supermassive galactic structures which observations are discovering, do exactly that.
Blackholes may be equally creators as well as destroyers. Remember, Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes its form.
These massive compact objects are doing the ultimate "Dance of Shiva" the destruction of the inflowing material, and the creation which the outflowing material allows to occur afterwards.
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Kovil said
Where do you think jets originate from?
Binary Black Hole in 3C 75
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412.html
A Black Hole in M87?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970405.html
Streaming From A Black Hole
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970613.html
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _5756.html
Puny black holes can eject Milky Way's stars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... ef=dn10020
A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGH ... 308_e.html
Interesting reading
=========================================
In my opinion the so call black holes form an important part in the recycling process of the universe.
They have the abilty to collect and aslo to eject matter.
The question is how does one black hole grow to billions is size comapred to our black hole having only a few million sun masses.
===========================================
ooops got to run,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,be back later
Have to pick up the kids.
Kovil said
One sec who said it does not happen any moreThe main reason I suspect that might be a possibility is that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy. That is consistent with current observations, correct?
This behavior might not be observable now for at least one reason. Perhaps it just does not happen any more and/or perhaps it just cannot be observed using current technology. [2]
Where do you think jets originate from?
Binary Black Hole in 3C 75
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412.html
A Black Hole in M87?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970405.html
Streaming From A Black Hole
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970613.html
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _5756.html
A team of astronomers from The Netherlands and the UK has discovered a vast "jet-powered bubble" formed in the gas around a black hole in the Milky Way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery means that for decades scientists have been severely underestimating how much power black holes pump back into the universe instead of merely swallowing material across their event horizons.
Jets of energy and particles flowing outwards at close to the speed of light are a common feature of all accreting black holes, ranging from supermassive black holes at the centres of active galactic nuclei to stellar-mass black holes in X-ray binary systems within our own Galaxy.
However, for the first time European astronomers have now discovered a large bubble surrounding an X-ray binary system. The bubble is approximately 10 light years across, and is predicted to be expanding with a speed of around 100 km per second (225,000 mph).
It appears to have been formed by the action of a powerful outflow or "jet" of energy and matter from the black hole over a time scale of about a million years.
The new, detailed radio observations of a black hole called Cygnus X-1 show a ring of radio emission around a bubble in the nearby interstellar gas - the result of a strong shock that develops at the location where the jet strikes the rarefied gas of the interstellar medium.
The jet that created the bubble seems to be carrying more than 100,000 times the total luminosity of our Sun, and yet the only evidence for this incredible flow of energy is its impact on the tenuous gas between the stars, resulting in the expanding bubble.
"We already knew that supermassive black holes at the centre of other galaxies produce enormous amounts of energy, but this finding proves that something similar is happening in our backyard," said Elena Gallo of the University of Amsterdam, lead author of the paper which will appear in this week's issue of Nature.
"Remarkably, it also means that, after a massive star dies and turns into a black hole, it is still capable of energising its surroundings, by means of completely different mechanisms."
"The importance of this result is that it demonstrates that black holes such as Cygnus X-1, of which there may be millions within our galaxy alone, do not swallow all of the infalling matter and energy, but rather redirect a considerable fraction of it back into space," added Rob Fender of the University of Southampton, second author on the paper.
Sorry i quoted so much. The reason is that people do not read links."We knew about jets from black holes and expected to discover some interaction of the jet's energy with the gas in our Milky Way, but the size and energy content of this bubble came as a surprise," added co-author Dr. Christian Kaiser, also of the University of Southampton.
The team has ruled out the possibility that the ring might be the low-luminosity remnant of the supernova that spawned the black hole. Since Cygnus X-1 moves in the sky along a trajectory that is roughly perpendicular to the jet, it cannot possibly have been located in the centre of the ring.
Puny black holes can eject Milky Way's stars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... ef=dn10020
A Jet is a Jet, Big or Small: Scale Invariance of Black Hole Jets
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGH ... 308_e.html
Interesting reading
=========================================
In my opinion the so call black holes form an important part in the recycling process of the universe.
They have the abilty to collect and aslo to eject matter.
The question is how does one black hole grow to billions is size comapred to our black hole having only a few million sun masses.
===========================================
ooops got to run,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,be back later
Have to pick up the kids.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
-
harry
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello bystander
I do not think along the lines of the Big Bang theory.
But! the big bang theory assumes that there was not one big bang but many distributed throughout the universe.
So! along those lines, your statement is not too far from those lines of thought.
Stop being a bystander, it reminds me of the person sitting on the fence line and whatching life go by.
I do not think along the lines of the Big Bang theory.
But! the big bang theory assumes that there was not one big bang but many distributed throughout the universe.
So! along those lines, your statement is not too far from those lines of thought.
Stop being a bystander, it reminds me of the person sitting on the fence line and whatching life go by.
Harry : Smile and live another day.