black holes and mass

jackienle · Post by **jackienle** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:13 am

All I have heard re: black holes is that they "eat" matter that falls into them. Do black holes actually destroy matter, thus reducing the total mass of the universe, do they transform matter into another form and redistribute it back into the universe, thus maintaining the total mass of the universe, or do they hold on to the matter they "eat" and increase in mass, thus maintaining the total mass of the universe?

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:28 am

Hello All

Black Holes are just a super dense plasma matter that does not allow light to escape.

All matter is collected and broken down to the basic particals that make up atoms.

We see the progressive change in stars
Normal star with 20 times the density of Iron in its core
Neutron Stars with danisty 10^15 to 10^18
Quarks stars 10^18 to 10^22 or so
Preon stars theoretical 10^22 to 10^32 or so

Neutrons compact themselves very tight.
Qarks that make up neutron compact even tighter
Preon that make up quarks compact even more.

and so on

No matter is created or destroyed.

Matter cannot be created from nothing
and nothing can create matter.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:05 pm

Well Harry,
I might tend to disagree with you on that point. As a star fuses hydrogen into helium a new type of matter is created. As the fusion continues, additional quantities of other different matter is created, heavier matter until carbon is created. Perhaps when the star explodes, the extreme violent pressures and temperatures then create the extremely heavy elements.

I do realize that this form of creation is really a transformation from one element to another with the release or transformation of elemental materials as needed, but it still creates matter that didn't exist before. Albeit without a net gain to the absolute weight of the star.

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:08 pm

A better way to put it, perhaps, is that mass-energy cannot be destroyed. You can convert mass to energy (which is how nuclear reactions 'produce' energy), and you can convert energy back into mass, but neither can be destroyed entirely.

Black holes are mass-energy sinks. Whatever falls in simply adds to the mass of the hole itself. Over time, black holes are theorized to evaporate due to Hawking radiation, thus 'returning' their mass back to the general universe; however this process takes a mind-bogglingly long time, about 10^100 years for the largest black holes.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:27 am

Hello ALL

What part do you disagree with.

Matter transfers to energy and energy transfers to matter.

During the process nothing is lost and nothing is gained.

This is why I do not agree with the Big Bang hoo Haa theory, that relies on Majic and fantasy parts to make it work.

Yes I know about fusion and fission. If you want I will give you the links to star formation and the atomic process.

Smile, its ok to disagree. With cosmology we are all know it all but! know very little.

I for one in the last 12 months have learnt quite a bit and found that I know very little.

We have aichip on Mars, and Orin and Qev and BMAONE23 and many more that have made this discussion group. PS and Makc.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:55 pm

Harry,
Don't forget yourself in the list of those who have made this a true discussion group.

Bryan

sym666 · Post by **sym666** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:16 am

harry wrote:This is why I do not agree with the Big Bang hoo Haa theory, that relies on Majic and fantasy parts to make it work...

Hi everybody, this is my first post.
I don't think Bing Bang theory involves magic. What did you mean Harry? And why do you disagree with it precisely?

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:25 pm

Hello hello sym666

I would like you to read the following links rather than me expalining it over and over and over. I sure we have discussed in many links. But! this is part of the never ending story. So if you want to further discuss this. I'm here .
And keep smiling

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ng.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... in.html#c1"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... le.html#c0

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... at.html#c1

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com/

http://www.astronomynow.com/

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jub ... ubble.html

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/ent ... lection/+3

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/researc ... mation.htm

http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA

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

Thanks mate BMAONE23

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

nomystics · Post by **nomystics** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:03 am

you must be kidding, really. You can't just dismiss a theory in its entirety because of some anomalies that may exist. Lets stay scientifically grounded. As you may be aware, but it bears constant reminding, that a theory is a framework that that attempts to explain reality in a cohesive whole, incorporating all the facts.

Any anomalies, must necessarily modify the theory, but in reality, not very many instances of a new fact have completely overthrown a complete established theory because it cannot negate the vast amount of evidence supporting the existing theory, it usually modifies it. If its a thin theory, its possible, but when someone tries to sell me a free energy machine on the internet, excuse me if I am a bit skeptical that someone has disproved the second law of thermodynamics.

Fundamentally, the situation is simply one of three cases. The universe is expanding forever, its not, or its static. The evidence, so far, supports the former.

Its not a matter of belief, conspiracy theory or mysticism as most of your links show, its a matter of fact.

Galactic Groove · Post by **Galactic Groove** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:55 am

my god harry, i'm gonna need a week just to read all that!!! but thanks a bunch for the reading material!!

for my own bit of input, i was watching this documentary on String Theory.

http://www.torrentportal.com/details/20 ... D.avi.html
It's a torrent file so you'll need a program like Azureus to download it http://www.azureus.sourceforge.net
(edit::sorry, just double checked and no one is seeding it anymore

)

They gave the possible explanation that what we call the big bang may be the result of some collision between two universes, or simply between two strings. I'm really grasping for a better explanation cuz this is really over my head but it was a very interesting documentary and really opened my mind to a vast new way of thinking. It was somewhat enlightening. If you think the big bang is some magic thing, you just haven't thought of it in a different way yet. Cheers!

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:51 am

Hello all

Hi nomystics,,,,,,,,,,,,your right its only a theory. But! the Big Bang has been built from false statements and Hoo Hahs. Mark my words within 2 years it will be out with a Bang.

If I'm wrong I will eat my hut.

Hey! if you have evidence to support it,,,,,,I'm all ears

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

Hello Galactic Groove.

Sorry mate,,,,,,,,,,,,,Rome was not built in a day. Take a month of sundays.

I like your link http://www.torrentportal.com/details/20 ... D.avi.html

This will take a few weeks to read. Darn just when I thought I could relax you people come in with all this.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,and live another day.

Galactic Groove · Post by **Galactic Groove** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:04 pm

sorry harry, i'm not quite sure what you mean with the Rome comment...
It's too bad the link isn't active anymore. It was over a year ago that i watched this and highly recommend it!
I got through the first of your links.. finished at 3am.. had to work in 5 hours though so i couldn't continue

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:43 pm

Although Harry has some interesting thoughts on the BB and other scientifically accepted theories they are nonetheless not widely accepted (too many holes). As I told Harry in previous threads - I strongly feel any attempt to debunk BB will only lead to supporting it in one way or another.

Nomystics said it well when he wrote "You can't just dismiss a theory in its entirety because of some anomalies that may exist." All the collaborating evidence that makes up the BB is simply not going to vanish due to some unexplained occurrences.

The 1st rule you should use when determining merit is -supporting evidence. And the overwhelming weight of the supporting evidence for the BB is undeniable.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:11 am

Hello Martin

The Big Bang will fall, its only a matter of time.

News flash. Sydney Morning Herald.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"London: The universe we live in may not be the only one but just the latest in a line of repeating big bangs stretching back through time, according to the latest theory from cosmologists.
Instead of being formed from a single big bang about 14 billion years ago destined to expand and eventually peter out to the cold, dead remains of stars, the universe may be an endless loop of explosions and contractions stretching forever.
The latest theory has been postulated to account for what Einstein described as his biggest Blunder"", the cosmological constant, a number linking energy and space, which he proposed to account for the galaxies being driven apart."
Physcists have since than measured the number as too small.
The constant is a mathematical representaion of the energy of empty space, known as dark energy, which exerts a kind of anti-gravity, pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It hapens to be a googol(1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single big bang.
According to the new theory, published yesterday in the journal Science, the discrepancy can be explained if the universe itself is billions of years older and fashioned from cyclical big bangs.
people have infered that time began then, but there really wasn't a reason for that infrernce, said Neil Turok, a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain. " what we are proposing is very radical. Its saying there was time before the Big Bang".
There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".
If this theory is right, how long have we got until the next big bang?
Professor Turok said " We can't predict when it will happen with any precision- all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years".

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

Exploding the Big Bang
David Pratt
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Is The Universe Static Or Expanding?
http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html

I could go on and on. Many scientists are moving away from the Big Bang.

I can sit on the fence and agree with the Big Bang Theory. But! it has no legs to stand on.

Smile and yet it is the standard model. Work that one out.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:40 pm

Your recent post Harry confirms what I said -it will ultimately lead to supporting it. Whether, one or many the BANG remains strongly supported for obvious reasons. It is our knowledge of the event that is inadequate -not the event itself. So, 33 scientists did not bust the theory they in fact supported it by possibly expanding upon our comprehension of the event(s).

jackienle · Post by **jackienle** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:31 pm

A very interesting event, The subject of my inquiry dealt with black holes and mass and the discussion went to the big bang theory. It would be nice if the responses stayed somewhat related to the inquiry rather than morphing to promoting your own theories not related to the subject. Thanks for letting me express my opinion, LeRoy.

Doum · Post by **Doum** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:26 pm

Jackienle,
the black hole "eat" mass and his mass increase so his gravity increase too. The more the gravity increase the more the mass are attract to it ("eaten".) and it goes on. Total mass of the universe and its energy are constant all the time. For how long this theorie will hold i dont know but for now it still hold.

jackienle · Post by **jackienle** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:15 pm

Doum, thanks for a reply that addresses the question. Your answer and my beliefs agree. Another question, "What does the other side of a black hole look like? Does it take in matter from both sides? Is it possable black holes produce the dark matter and dark energy we can't find?" I don't think we truly understand all we think we know about black holes and the results of their work. LeRoy

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:41 am

jackienle wrote:Does it take in matter from both sides?

What does this mean?

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:59 am

Hello Martin

Re the Big Bang theory.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Doum · Post by **Doum** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm

Hi Jackienle, from what i understand about blackhole is that its a massive star that collapse on itself. And gravity is so strong that light can't escape it. In fact nothing can escape it. So it look black. It's a collapse star that spin fast. It doesnt have an other side to it. Matter that came close enough to it fall on it from all around it. Its a dark star!

And yes we may not know everything on black hole yet. I doubt it is related to dark matter and dark energy. These are under study for now. Will see.

jackienle · Post by **jackienle** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:12 pm

Pete, the images we see on graphics regarding black holes depict it as a whirlpool or tornado type of structure pulling matter into the vortex. Perhaps this is a poor depiction. If this is the structure there should be another end as there is in a whirlpool or tornado. In that case does it pull matter in from both ends? There was a reply stating black holes pull matter in from all angles. If this is the case the depictions we get of what they look like are deceiving. Hope I clarified the question.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:59 pm

jackienle,

If you think of our sun, for example, and how our solar system was formed and functions, there is a correlation to black holes and how they function.

Our solar system was formed out of a disk of dust and other matter that had enshrouded our sun in its infancy. As the gas that formed our sun collapsed in on itself and began rotating, forming our rotating solar gravity well, and the infant star began its fusion process, the shroud of dust formed a ring of dust around the star. This protoplanetary disk is what formed the planets and moons in a very violent process.

The point is that there is still matter (comets and such) that orbit the sun along the eclyptic plane that gets sucked into the sun in a spiraling motion and also matter that gets sucked into from above and below as well. (if you frequent the SOHO site often enough, you will notice this in the daily MPEGS.)

I would imagine that the same thing happens around a Black Hole at the event horizon. Matter will spiral into the event horizon along the eclyptic plane of the Black Hole and eventually will become part of the mass of the Black Hole itself as it grows and the event horizon expands. Other matter can be sucked in from above or below as well.

eyecapitain1 · Post by **eyecapitain1** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:31 pm

My isp hates me. I have attempted, three times, to post a thread detailing answeres to jakienle's questions, only to get booted at upload time.
In a day or two I'll be back with a full summation (hopefully) of what I know and "believe" are good answeres. The situation is fairly complex but actualy easy to understand when stated properly. Something astrophysicists tend to be terrible at. "Simple" doesn't seem to fit in their vocabulary.
I, however,am quite simple.

So is the visualisation I will bring
Enjoy

eyecapitain1 · Post by **eyecapitain1** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:49 pm

I posted a short animated gif of a simple wireframe view of a single slice in spacetime gravity shear
http://www.geocities.com/eyecapitain1/S ... _Warp.html
keep in mind that this is only one slice in three dimentions of what would look the same regardles of the direction we look at it.
For dialup users this will take a few minutes to fully load.

Starship Asterisk*

black holes and mass

black holes and mass

Well Harry...

Three times

graphic of "gravity shear"