Quasar

[The Code]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

28 billion light years, 2 trillion times brighter than the sun. Time to form? Was time different, which in turn made things work faster?

[Chris Peterson]

28 billion light years, 2 trillion times brighter than the sun. Time to form? Was time different, which in turn made things work faster?

No.

[harry]

G'day

I have read the link from wikipedia on Quasars and its written like a journal writing. Who ever wrote it has a secondary science schooling.

Eg

While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects — as recently as the early 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their nature — there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding the central supermassive black hole. Its size is 10-10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole.

The compact region is the source of the power not the disc. This can be shown from AGN without a disc or a minimal disc feeding. This is calaculated by the mass escaping a so called black hole being much greater compared to the feeding of it. This is how black holes become larger and smaller balance by ejection and feeding. The form of galaxies is directly related to the AGN. This information can esily bee researched.

[Chris Peterson]

The compact region is the source of the power not the disc. This can be shown from AGN without a disc or a minimal disc feeding. This is calaculated by the mass escaping a so called black hole being much greater compared to the feeding of it. This is how black holes become larger and smaller balance by ejection and feeding. The form of galaxies is directly related to the AGN. This information can esily bee researched.

Your comments are factually wrong. All active galactic nuclei have accretion discs, because that is the only mechanism for steadily feeding material into a black hole, and that steady feeding is what produces the energy we see around those black holes we can detect.

No mass escapes a black hole. No macroscopic black holes become smaller; they can only grow more massive as they absorb surrounding material. Even in a perfect vacuum, they will still become more massive because they are colder than the microwave background, and therefore absorb more from the Universe's background photons than they can radiate via Hawking radiation.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Mate, my facts are correct, you live in the stone age.

To understand the chiral properties of matter you may have to do some research.

The classical black hole in theory exists. In reallity condensed matter acts like a Black Hole that is able to produce trapping horizons that prevent EMR from escaping at the same time producing an axion. You may have to study supersymmetry, the formation of instanton (Higgs Boson properties, quark, pions etc) and a soliton. This is science that can be searched without a problem.

Also the disc that forms around condensed matter is typical process for most objects from planets to stars to AGN. The feeding does not cause the ultimate power it is the properties within the core of the condensed matter that generates the power. The feeding serves to build up the condensed core. The various phases that develope determine the ultimate power and stability.

Yes I know that main stream so called may think along the lines that a black hole once formed cannot allow matter to escape. S Hawking lost his bet on this issue.

So please do your research

[Chris Peterson]

In reallity condensed matter acts like a Black Hole that is able to produce trapping horizons that prevent EMR from escaping at the same time producing an axion....

You don't even use correct terms with these harebrained ideas. Your head is made of condensed matter; does it act like a black hole?

We've all heard this nonsense before, but every time you repeat it, I'll be here to remind the silent readers of this forum that it's nonsense, and that if they're here to learn something about astronomy, it should be thoroughly ignored.

[Orca]

Harry, over the years I (and perhaps others) have come to see you as the "friendly, harmless local fringe theory / pseudoscience guy." I've taken the time to debate/argue with you in the past but for the most part I chuckle to myself and think, "ah, Harry's at it again."

You've got a right to believe what ever you want. However, as it's been pointed out to a painful degree, this isn't a message board about beliefs; it's a board about science.

Working on fringe theory is not necessarily a bad thing, ultimately. Challenging convention is fine; it keeps us all on our toes. However if we're not all on the same page - science-based astronomy - the conversation quickly descends into a pointless exercise at best and mud-slinging at worst.

So I'd like to kindly make a few suggestions.

First, as an advocate of fringe theories, you carry the burden of proof. Getting frustrated with people who support mainstream theory is not going to help you at all. You have to support your position with data...else you haven't got one.

Second, aloof statements such as, "you're in the stone age, you need to research such and such" when addressing folks who support mainstream science really does not help your cause either. Quite the opposite, especially when you direct them at folks who are more well versed in astronomy than yourself.

Third, instead of baffling us with the wildness of exciting new concepts, try another tack: cross-examine the elements of prevailing theory you don't agree with or fully understand and build arguments against them within the framework of scientific method and current research. You may bring up some legitimate questions...and you may just answer a few through the process.

[harry]

G'day Orca

Thank you for the kind words.

Trust me I have gone through and read and read mainstream papers.

Science is the issue.

The science that I refer to is not new and does not originate from me.

The wave of information that is coming through cannot be placed as side issues.

Assume the BBT and main stream are correct. As a scientist you keep on testing to find that the foundations a solid. Do you thnk that I'm not doing that. You should not become emotional over any theory.

When people hold onto old theories that have little scientific evidence and I mean evidence that cannot be disputed than thats what I call stone age.

Orca this is what Chris has said:

You don't even use correct terms with these harebrained ideas. Your head is made of condensed matter; does it act like a black hole?

We've all heard this nonsense before, but every time you repeat it, I'll be here to remind the silent readers of this forum that it's nonsense, and that if they're here to learn something about astronomy, it should be thoroughly ignored.

Do you call this science?

[The Code]

Hi all,

I am matter, sitting on a piece of dust called earth. We are all traveling around the milky way. We are not moving inwards or outwards. Like 98% of all matter in the milky way, we are on a stable orbit around a 3 million solar mass BH.
In a previous post Mr C.P stated there is not much matter falling into a black hole. If the Black hole did not get to its 3 million solar mass size by eating vast amounts of matter, How did it come to be? If our galaxy is as old as the universe and most other galaxies , why is there so much difference in size? Where the process of feeding black holes does not change, gravity does not change, and time does not change. Yet the solar mass size changes from 3 million to 18 billion.

What happens when you find a 200 billion s/m black hole?

Seasonal greetings to all.

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

In a previous post Mr C.P stated there is not much matter falling into a black hole. If the Black hole did not get to its 3 million solar mass size by eating vast amounts of matter, How did it come to be?

What I said is that not much matter falls into black holes, not that a lot hasn't fallen in over a long time, or that a lot didn't fall in early in their development. The question of how supermassive black holes form remains unanswered, but it seems to be a relatively fast process, after which they have cleared the area around them and stop showing any kind of rapid growth.

If our galaxy is as old as the universe and most other galaxies , why is there so much difference in size?

Why is there a difference in size between a dandelion and a sequoia? After all, they are nearly the same thing. The Universe is not and never was homogeneous. When galaxies formed, there were regions with more or less matter, and the result was large and small galaxies. These galaxies then became modified in some cases by collisions. FWIW, I would argue that there really isn't such a large variation in size- only a couple orders of magnitude between the extremes, and about one for the majority of galaxies.

Where the process of feeding black holes does not change, gravity does not change, and time does not change. Yet the solar mass size changes from 3 million to 18 billion.

I assume you're talking about supermassive black holes? Again, you've not considered the initial conditions. The processes can be the same, but the concentrations of ordinary and dark matter can be very different, as can the collision history.

What happens when you find a 200 billion s/m black hole?

You write a paper.

[Chris Peterson]

Orca this is what Chris has said:

You don't even use correct terms with these harebrained ideas. Your head is made of condensed matter; does it act like a black hole?

Do you call this science?

It was a serious question. You said "condensed matter acts like a Black Hole..." Well, your head is made of condensed matter. So does it in some way act like a black hole? If it doesn't, why not?

[harry]

G'day Chris

A true black hole with an Event Horizon and a singularity exists only in theory.

What we do have is condensed matter or call it what you like compact matter whether its Neutron matter, quark matter, higgs boson or what ever the list goes on. When you have matter several times that of the density of the centre of an atom you have vector field forces that prevent EMR from escaping. The properties of this compact matter is the main concern that is able to create spins and a EM fields in a vortex that is able to eject matter along that vortex. The magnetic field as in an Axion is at the speed of light, the smaller the particles are able to be carried along that vortex field and its because of this that observations of matter in jets are shown to travel near the speed of light.

This is not my opinion but the science behind the properties of such compact matter. It is well documented and a simple search can help you along those lines.

If you need any information, let me know.

Telling me I do not understand means very little, it is what you research and discover that is important. Particularly in the last 12 months some very interesting research has been carried out.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

PKS 1127-145:
Chandra Scores A Double Bonus With A Distant Quasar

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.

The high-energy beam is thought to have been produced by explosive activity related to gas swirling around a supermassive black hole. The length of the jet and the observed bright knots of X-ray emission suggest that the explosive activity is long-lived but intermittent.

Chandra's explanation is not correct they have not addressed the formation of the jet.

Regardless it is an image of importance indicating the power and stability of over 1 million L yrs of such jets.

[Orca]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

PKS 1127-145:
Chandra Scores A Double Bonus With A Distant Quasar

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.

The high-energy beam is thought to have been produced by explosive activity related to gas swirling around a supermassive black hole. The length of the jet and the observed bright knots of X-ray emission suggest that the explosive activity is long-lived but intermittent.

Chandra's explanation is not correct they have not addressed the formation of the jet.

Regardless it is an image of importance indicating the power and stability of over 1 million L yrs of such jets.

I find it odd that you so easily dismiss the accretion disk as the source of the jet. We can observe such disks, and we know the physical processes (ie, gravity, friction, ect) that heat up the material and create high-energy EM radiation as it condenses and accelerates in its downward spiral toward the black hole. We cannot, however, observe the inside of black holes and make conclusions about the structure of the matter within.

I am willing to accept the possibility that singularites, as predicted mathematically, don't represent reality. But ultimately, if black holes are some kind of super dense "quark matter" or what ever, they end up behaving the same way: Hotel California (with the exception of Hawking Radiation, but even that is not really an issue because as Chris pointed out, for black holes of solar mass or higher, the random incoming EM radiation from the Cosmic Background is higher than the output of HR).

Also, in the same post before that, you say EM can't escape your fantastic black hole material - but in some instances matter can - because it's accelerated close to the speed of EM radiation. That makes no sense.

[Chris Peterson]

A true black hole with an Event Horizon and a singularity exists only in theory.

Yup, just like everything exists only in theory.

What we do have is condensed matter or call it what you like compact matter whether its Neutron matter, quark matter, higgs boson or what ever the list goes on.

No! Until you grasp this very simple idea, nothing you say is worth considering. Things have names and definitions for a reason; you can't just spew an arbitrary list of different terms- with different meanings- and say "call them what you like". This is a science forum. If you don't call things what scientists have agreed to call them, your ideas are nothing but meaningless babble.

When you have matter several times that of the density of the centre of an atom you have vector field forces that prevent EMR from escaping.

Nor can you make up terms, or take terms out of context and think it makes the babbling mean something. Before you make an assertion like this, tell us what "vector field forces" actually are. Don't just link some paper, I want to hear it in your own words. There is nothing in the Universe so complex that it can't be briefly described in a few sentences of ordinary English. If you can't explain these things, it means that you don't understand them. And if you don't understand them, we shouldn't have to hear about them from you.

If you need any information, let me know.

See above.

[harry]

G'day orca

You said

I find it odd that you so easily dismiss the accretion disk as the source of the jet. We can observe such disks, and we know the physical processes (ie, gravity, friction, ect) that heat up the material and create high-energy EM radiation as it condenses and accelerates in its downward spiral toward the black hole. We cannot, however, observe the inside of black holes and make conclusions about the structure of the matter within.

Orca with due respect, please read up on this topic. This type of explanation was given years gone by. Accretion disc is a collection of matter around a compact body. The turbulence does not create the main jet. The physics is not like cyclones on Earth. Yes the turbulence allows for stars to collide and give of a bright halo around compact matter and produce unstable jets, but the creation of jets that have a stable wave form such as a soliton must originate within the compact matter in order to give stability and direction particularly when an AXION is formed creating jets opposite to each other. This is not my opinion but the properties explained in many scientific papers.

I am willing to accept the possibility that singularites, as predicted mathematically, don't represent reality. But ultimately, if black holes are some kind of super dense "quark matter" or what ever, they end up behaving the same way: Hotel California (with the exception of Hawking Radiation, but even that is not really an issue because as Chris pointed out, for black holes of solar mass or higher, the random incoming EM radiation from the Cosmic Background is higher than the output of HR).

The term Black Hole is contexual. It does not exist. The information on this topic particularly in the last 12 months is very easily researched.

Also, in the same post before that, you say EM can't escape your fantastic black hole material - but in some instances matter can - because it's accelerated close to the speed of EM radiation. That makes no sense.

Its not for me to explain the nature of how jets are formed and eject matter at close to the speed of light. This information can easily be researched.

Here is one link of interest did you actually read the link. Can you comprehend the size and complexity.
PKS 1127-145:
Chandra Scores A Double Bonus With A Distant Quasar
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

Imagine if I just agreed with most of you. Then in time you found that I was correct. What then?

[harry]

G'day Chris

Mate it is so simple, please look up wikipedia.

You have no idea of cosmology and the little information that you do have is very elementary.

One sec I will do it for you

Vector field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field

Field line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line

Force field (physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_(physics)

and so on. It does become complicated with subatomic particles particularly in supersymmetry.

[Chris Peterson]

...but the creation of jets that have a stable wave form such as a soliton must originate within the compact matter in order to give stability and direction particularly when an AXION is formed creating jets opposite to each other. This is not my opinion but the properties explained in many scientific papers.

No, it isn't. You are completely misunderstanding things. I'd say you need to read up on the subject, but you don't seem to understand what you read, so there's probably no point. Virtually every theory of jet formation contains the same key points: jets are fed by infalling matter from accretions disks, and driven by complex magnetic fields produce by rapidly rotating bodies. There are many details that are not well understood, but these basic factors are agreed upon.

[Chris Peterson]

Mate it is so simple, please look up wikipedia.

In other words, you don't understand it and can't explain it. Even your Wikipedia references don't explain at all what "vector field forces" are in the context you use the term.

You can't explain these concepts in your own words (which is what you need to do to convince me you have any understanding of this subject at all), and you can't even point me towards references that explain them in other people's words.

[harry]

G'day Chris

What is one and one?

Simple questions need no answer.

Anyway

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

Gear up for 2010

[geckzilla]

Harry, you are incorrigible.

[The Code]

Hi all

1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... t-yet.html
2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34328588/


870 million years and counting Chris. I can wait.
600 million years and counting

[bystander]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... t-yet.html
870 million years and counting Chris . I can wait.

And your point? This isn't even recent news (June 2007).

[Chris Peterson]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... t-yet.html
870 million years and counting Chris . I can wait.

I don't understand why this is addressed to me.

[bystander]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34328588/
600 million years and counting

You missed two in between.

Some of the Universe's First Galaxies Discovered, 2009 Nov 06, ~787 million years after BB
Violent Explosion Is Most Distant Object Ever Seen, 2009 Oct 28, ~700 million years after BB

I still don't understand your point!