Starship Asterisk*

by **harry** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:28 am

I came across this link on starburst galaxies

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/starburst.html

I hope its not a repeat

by **harry** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:50 am

smile,,,,,,,

Hello Bilderback

I agree with you about the eggs.

As for good in depth science,,,,I don't think this is the zone for it.

You will burn most people from the discussions.

I have a personal email, if you want indepth knowledge, I'm more than pleased to help you.

by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:30 pm

Sorry Harry,

I can't sit idle and watch bad science being propagated. The fundamentals I'm referring to is you misuse of terminology, stating speculation as fact, supporting one speculation with another, ignoring good science, and so on.

It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with your theory, it is how you are/aren't supporting it. To insinuate that if others knew more and would read what you read they would agree with you is a false assumption.
I'm sure there are people out there tha could correct me on some of my assupmtion, the difference is I listen, learn and don't put all my eggs in one basket.

by **astroton** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:04 am

Guys & gals (If any)

Everyone reads a book or a link on a web site from his own reference frame (extending relativity). The reference frame is made up of one's own experiences and thinking style developed from childhood onwards. Lots of great theories are made from the thinker's own intution - the best example is Einstein, Newton. The same reading might even affect two different people differently. Interestingly, einstein used to think about running close to and at the same speed of a wave of light from very childhood, which he later turned into theory. The maths for the theory was developed later. Newton's developing of calculus is another example.

One has a freedom of choice untill a theory of the unknown aspect has been proven to be fact. There still you are free to doubt, if it makes you comfy - free will.

by **harry** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:52 am

Hello Bilderback

Never assume about what people have read and their back ground.

Focus on the issues and the discussions.

Whether I post opionions or questions who do you think is qualified to anwser.

My opinions are backed by others in the field, I cannot take credit for them, although if I express them that means in many cases I agree with them.

At this particular point in time, not many cosmologists know what is going on. Emotioanlly many are trapped in models that they have been brain washed.

I have been looking at these Models for the past 40 years and my opinions have not grown over night.

Never ever bring religion into discussion.

As for fundementals, what fundementals are you tallking about?

As for discouragement,,,,,,,I'm too old in the tooth for that.

As for the links that I post sometimes, there just to help others snoop a bit quicker.

Judge and others will judge you.

I for one think that some of your ideas are OK,,others are inside out based on info that has been outdated.

All of us need to grow with the new info that is flooding the science world.

Keep smiling

by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:25 am

Harry:

I can tell you are reading a lot and have made great progress, but I'm not sure if you are reading what you need to be reading. The fundamentals need to be well understood before valid judgments can be made on the speculative side of science. Snooping around web page after web page looking for any comment to validate your biased opinion is not good science. You've jumped into the fire and are learning to design you fire suit from with in the flames - you'll get burned every time.

I don't want to discourage you at all, I just think you should be asking a lot more questions than posting of opinions - its a much faster way to learn to differanciat good science from bad. I don't think you are ready to solve the great questions of the universe - yet.

P.S. Try not to support your chosen theory with the faith of a religion, if your base assumptions prove to be false, it will all crash back down on you.

Oooooooooouch.

by **gordhaddow** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:51 pm

harry wrote: The neutron star may give us more ideas of the ongoings of a blackhole since it is part of the stage of becoming a blackhole.

A neutron star is not a 'stage' on the way to a black hole; any mass with the initial properties which would result in a black hole cannot form a neutron star at any time because there are not sufficient counteracting forces to stabilize the gravitational collapse. Conversely, if the initial properties are appropriate for the formation of a neutron star, there can be no further collapse without the application of additional external force sufficient to overcome the inner stabilization.

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:23 pm

gordhaddow

You said "Actually, the radius of the event horizon for a given mass is smaller than the radius of a neutron star of equivalent mass. And a black hole is only giving up mass if we can grant that gravitons are not massless. Anything that we can detect being 'excreted' by a black hole was probably never within the black hole, but consists of degenerate matter from the 'atmosphere' surrounding the event horizon being ejected as a result of a combination of rotational and electromagnetic forces"

In my opinion you are completely wrong

The neutron star may give us more ideas of the ongoings of a blackhole since it is part of the stage of becoming a blackhole.

The Black Hole can be small or quite large as with M87 a few billion times that of our sun.

see links
Look at the links

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... lack+Holes+
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... tron+stars

by **gordhaddow** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:08 pm

Actually, the radius of the event horizon for a given mass is smaller than the radius of a neutron star of equivalent mass. And a black hole is only giving up mass if we can grant that gravitons are not massless. Anything that we can detect being 'excreted' by a black hole was probably never within the black hole, but consists of degenerate matter from the 'atmosphere' surrounding the event horizon being ejected as a result of a combination of rotational and electromagnetic forces.

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:38 pm

Hello Bilderback

In my opinion

You have your ideas inside out.

The event Horizon is a point is space where light cannot escape.

Neutron stars are the seeds for blackholes.

Black Holes only get smaller by the internal gravitational convectional currents that create jet streams and expell matter. As for evaporation I don't think so.

Smile

But! thats my opinion.

by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:08 pm

Black holes do give up energy and mass; they expel gravitons, magnetic fields... The event horizon contains part or possibly all of the mass of a black hole, it is theoretically possible that the all the matter is at the event horizon and evaporates becoming smaller and smaller until its no long is a black hole and becomes something else - like collapses into a neutron star or explodes as a large gamma ray burst.

It is not known if there are singularity, finite sized objects, warped spaces holes, active event horizons or something completely different making up a black hole - it all loose theory.

by **BMAONE23** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:38 pm

Bilderback,
About the only way to cause something like a black hole to give up mass and energy without loosing any substance would be if the densness of the mass itself causes a link (gateway) to another dimension and draws energy and mass from it to be expelled into our own. If this were the case then it might also serve to explain the apparent weight (mass) of the visible universe being so small compared to its total apparent gravity. perhaps "Dark Matter/Energy" is actually being expelled from other dimensions into our own VIA the black holes.

by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:24 pm

I am fully aware of what is known and assumed about black hole and neutron stars and know the difference. When there is a finite amount of mass loosing a finite % of its total, at some point the mass left will equal zero. There is no 100% efficient reaction in the universe. Entropy = net loss - always. I'm not saying there is no recycling of matter/energy, I'm saying it can't continue indefinitely.

I didn't ask for any math, observation proves that matter/energy is going from dense to less dense areas and cooling as it go. If the universe is infinitely old, the cold less dense mater/energy has to reform into hot dense matter some how. All you need to do is state a theory as to how that happens. If you can't, the theory of a recycling universe you support is not valid no matter what happens in or near a black hole or neutron star.

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:00 am

Look at the links

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... lack+Holes+
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... tron+stars

Maybe you will get to feel the Neutron star and the black holes

Smile

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:52 am

Bilderback

You are going around in circles.

I think you are on the wrong track.

A process of recycling is not according to your logic.

------------------------------------------------

Astroton

Maths is great,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and you can make it twist the truth.

Observations are great and if you can see it you can believe it.

Maths in the past has been used to support the Big Bang,,,,,,,,the maths did not work.

What part do you disagree?
--------------------------------------------------

You can believe what ever you want.
Many cosmologists have lived their whole life thinking of one model and than changing with recent deep field images.

by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:56 am

harry wrote:If you define Santa Clause as daddy. Than Santa Clause exists.

If you define any theory with the correct foundations than they will not collapse even when you are gone.

Daddy does not give you infinite life (as per the speculative theory in question)

How do you prove such a speculative theory is based on correct / incorrect foundation without math backing?

Speculative theories without math still float and succed before dying a terrible death.

by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:56 am

So there are clusters of dense matter (any matter of our universe), sending out matter/energy to less dense areas over an infinite amount of time.

After some amount of time, a very, very long time, our universe would have recycled itself over and over becoming smaller/less dense each time because of the matter/energy lost due to entropy - the photons, neutrinos ... etc. moving from the dense areas of the universe speeding away at the speed of light. Without new matter/energy entering the universe, all aspects of the universe would reach equilibrium at either infinity or 1/infinity. The universe would end up being infinitely large, the smallest possible units of matter/energy moving away from each other at C, and be at absolute zero.

This scenario makes no sense unless you can explain how the matter/energy lost to entropy is somehow pulled back or formed into high-density areas to reform the hot dense matter/energy the universe IS made of.

This is theoretically possible but it requires the Big Bang to make it work.

So now it is up to you to show how the matter/energy that should become less dense and colder, can reform as hot dense matter.

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:54 am

If you define Santa Clause as daddy. Than Santa Clause exists.

If you define any theory with the correct foundations than they will not collapse even when you are gone.

by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:31 am

makc wrote:
astroton wrote:I have my theory to explain all but don't have math to back it up.
Just a side note, a theory is nought without its math. In other words: I have my theory for Santa Claus, but that doesnt mean there is actually Santa Claus.

Mak, I don have math for my theory but, I have math for ability of speculative theory's success or failure. It goes like this,

In any reference frame (field of study), ability of speculative theory to succeed (S) is proportional to,

Author’s ability to make friends in the field (A)
Author’s ability to please powerful people in the field (P)
1 / Author’s ability to suppress easily targettable competition (T)
Authors ability to say,” Yes I meant that too" when competition is not easy to suppress. (Y)
Number of years author lives to protect his theory (L)

The value of the constant is 1.

by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:00 am

Bilderback stated:

"OK, so you theoretical universe is infinitely old.

Stars give off light, gravity, neutrinos that travel out from the source, am I correct in that assumption?"

Correct

by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:59 am

I don think we have ability to study further than visible universe. Restriction to the speed of light is a restriction to our ability (so far). But, since most theories on the origins of universe tend to be speculative, I would most certainly speculate that the multiverse is infinite. The blue shifted galaxies and hubble's (not the telescope but the original one) findings are good enough proof on receding galaxies. If you believe in that (and the proof is substantial), the origins of our abode that we call universe seem to point towards big bang or some such event. I would say conversion of energy to mass and vice versa is an infinite process.

by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:25 pm

OK, so you theoretical universe is infinitely old.

Stars give off light, gravity, neutrinos that travel out from the source, am I correct in that assumption?

by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:59 pm

The Universe has no age and is infinite.

by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:47 pm

Your ideas are very limited. Go read more

My ideas are limited to the laws of physics, observations and logic. Reading other peoples speculations can be interesting, but if one truly understands the science, the flaws in some of these speculative theories automatically negates their validity.

Let me try this:

Do you believe the universe is infinite in age?

by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:06 pm

Hello Bilderback

The only thing that will hold you back is yourself.

You have good writing skills.

But! you limit yourself.

No model is mine.
No theory is mine.

Bilderback said

"Let's say you had a balloon that could become infinity large, how long would it take to fill it at 1 mole/hour? Then how long would it take at infinite moles/hour?

Photons, gravitons, neutrinos, etc. are all spreading out across the universe from dense areas to less dense areas, that is the basis of entropy. If the universe was static, it would have to be infinitely old and by the properties of matter, a mathematical representation model states that the universe would be infinite in size, infinitely cold, and what ever the smallest unit of matter, each would be an infinite distance apart. "

"Please don't forget how big infinity is. It is the major flaw in your theory and any effort to explain it away is in direct conflict to the theory itself."

Your ideas are very limited. Go read more

Starship Asterisk*

Starburst Galaxy

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Starburst Galaxy