Globular Clusters and why the "Big Bang" is Wrong!

[HoyleMan]

If you dont know globular clusters are groups of stars that float around the milky way and probably other galaxies. Globular clusters (GCs) are the oldest objects in the universe, made of slowly dying old giant stars

The paradox between the age of the universe and the age of Globular Clusters. Some GCs have low metal abundancies and have ages estimated from 14-16 billion years. These would exceed the best estimates for the age of the Universe which is 13.6 billion years.

So here we have another "accepted truth" (BBT. Myth!) that was unquestioned for decades, common knowledge in textbooks, spouted matter-of-factly by astronomy professors, swallowed meekly by students, that is all out the window again. It would be a good example of science being a "self-correcting process" except that current theories seem to raise more questions than answers. Why dont globular clusters fly apart? I dont think there is dark matter in there. Why are they old!

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm

[iamlucky13]

*Sigh* I don't even know why I bother responding.

To say the Big Bang Theory is flat out wrong is at least as premature as saying it is absolutely correct. There are certainly problems with the Big Bang Theory because it doesn't explain everything in the universe perfectly. In addition to the globular cluster age, some well-discussed isses include the horizon problem, the flatness issue, lack of magnetic monopoles, matter/anti-matter assymetry, and dark matter/energy. However, on the whole, it does at least as well and arguably better than the leading alternate theories, including plasma cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

[harry]

Hello iamlucky.

What do you think that the universe is made from.?

Most of the matter is in the Black holes as ultra dense Plasma matter.
For some you may have to read up on the different forms of plasma and the phases of matter.

Dark matter, dark energy is maded up mostly from black holes.

Plasma Cosmology will be the main model in the near future. This and the recyclic process will expalin all issues in the universe without Hooey stuff.

===========================================

Hello Hoyleman

The question is this.

How long does a star exist?
Anywhere from a few thousand years to 15 or so billion years. This is fact not fantasy.
So, every time it recycles, either by nova or by supernova or by hypernova. It regerates atoms light and heavy and in so doing the dating process starts again. This gives us a missleading date for the age of the universe.
If you are a BBT person you will be looking for a finite date.
If you are a recyclic person you will still be looking at a finite date.

Some large objects out there, such as the super clusters are over 60 billion years to form. But! the dating of the stars are only 14 billion years, thats because of the recyclic process.

[HoyleMan]

Some large objects out there, such as the super clusters are over 60 billion years to form. But! the dating of the stars are only 14 billion years, thats because of the recyclic process.

it would not surprise me if some super clusters took over 100 billion years to form! It is consistent with the age of stars in globular clusters (GCs) near the center of the largest superclusters (eg the Virgo cluster)

[Captain_Cosmos]

HoyleMan, I too am worried about globular super clusters. I heard lots of people say they take too many billions of years to form and I wonder how BBT people can explain them? Is it true that BBT people ignore their chemistry makeup because they should contain metal dust but instead are made only of stars (and presumably plasma holes)?

[Qev]

Dark matter, dark energy is maded up mostly from black holes.

No, they're not. Those would be MACHOs, and we don't see even remotely enough of them to account for the effects of dark matter. And dark energy is generating a net repulsive force; I fail to see how black holes are going to create that effect.

Some large objects out there, such as the super clusters are over 60 billion years to form. But! the dating of the stars are only 14 billion years, thats because of the recyclic process.

Sixty billion years? And where does this number come from? Current simulations of large-scale structure formation (using the CDM Big Bang model) show things forming nicely in the allotted ~13-14Gyr.

If the universe is older than 14-15 billion years old, we'd see stars that old. There are stars, very common stars, in existance now that have lifespans estimated into the trillions of years. Where are the ones that should still be around from 60 billion years back? They should still be ticking along happily. What physical process is going to cause every star that happens to be older than one specific cut-off age to suddenly 'regenerate'?

As for the globular cluster problem, I believe that was more or less solved when the Hippocaros (and other data) showed that the globular clusters being studied were further away than previously thought, which meant that they were younger than previously calculated. They now estimate an upper bound of 11.5 billion years for the oldest globular clusters.

[Wadsworth]

What physical process is going to cause every star that happens to be older than one specific cut-off age to suddenly 'regenerate'?

That would be an interesting process to observe... Qev, you definitely hit the nail on the head with that one.

[harry]

Hello All


A nail on the head hurts.

Hello Qev

Do you know what MACHO is?

MACHO is a compact matter, that we are unable to see, another name for this is Black Hole. We have millions of these in the Milky Way

Where did you get the idea that Dark matter has a repulsive effect?

Why do you want Black Holes to have a repulsive effect?
============================================
Qev said

If the universe is older than 14-15 billion years old, we'd see stars that old. There are stars, very common stars, in existance now that have lifespans estimated into the trillions of years. Where are the ones that should still be around from 60 billion years back? They should still be ticking along happily. What physical process is going to cause every star that happens to be older than one specific cut-off age to suddenly 'regenerate'?

You need to look at star formations and their deaths.

A star will go through the process of making up elements upto Iron and Nickel. As these elements are formed in due time , the star's core decreases in mass and density and so is unable to hold together the stars envelope and it expands as in the red giants. In addition it is unable to control the release of heat from the inner core creating a vilatile area. The Iron layer undergoes fission reaction, breaking down to neutrons and forming a neutron core, releasing huge amounts of energy in an extremely short period. This enrgy sends shock waves exploding the star's solar envelope into what we call a supernova.

The cycle from birth to death is something that needs to be looked at.

But! if the dating of the universe through the parts within are only 14 billion years than we could assume that the cycle is max 14 Billion years.

So even when we look at giant super cluster and we date them, we are really dating the parts within. Unable to date blackholes because we cannot see them.

Do you really know how big these super clusters are?

The Local Universe in 3D
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/research/threed/

Galaxy Cluster Abell 1689 Warps Space
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040627.html

The Perseus Cluster of Galaxies
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041025.html
The Perseus Cluster of Galaxies is part of the Pisces-Perseus supercluster of galaxies, which spans over 15 degrees and contains over 1000 galaxies. It takes light roughly 300 million years to get here from this region of the Universe.
A Note on the Perseus Cluster
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030912.html
The Pisces-Perseus Supercluster
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/acad ... 01/pps.htm


Fornax Cluster in Motion
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040924.html

the Fornax cluster of galaxies some 65 million light-years away. Spanning nearly 900,000 light-years

In the Center of the Virgo Cluster
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050213.html


The Coma Cluster of Galaxies
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961105.html


Some of these super glasters have been evolving since who knows when. It is so difficult to put a time on such super structures of the universe. My estimate and from other reading, I would say over 100 billion years.
And yet when we try to date them, we get a date of 14 billion years, this is because of the recycling of matter. Old to new and new to old, in a never ending story.

If you think along the lines of the BB, than you will not open your mind to the possibilities.

The BB is just a theory only. No proven parts.

But ! it did become THE standard model for some time.

[Dr. Skeptic]

But ! it did become THE standard model for some time.

Why did it become the standard model?

- Conspiracy?
- Money?
- Great astronomers don't know what you know?

[Qev]

A nail on the head hurts.

A nail in the foot hurts even worse. I've had that happen.

Do you know what MACHO is?

It stands for Massively Compact Halo Object.

MACHO is a compact matter, that we are unable to see, another name for this is Black Hole. We have millions of these in the Milky Way

Any collection of normal matter into a continguous body that isn't undergoing fusion (and therefore emitting light) can be considered a MACHO. Cooled-off white dwarfs and neutron stars (which there really shouldn't be any, yet), black holes, planets bound and unbound, any of these can be considered MACHOs.

You can't see these things directly, no. But gravity bends light. Surveys have been done looking for microlensing events in the Milky Way caused by MACHO type objects. And we've found them. But not anywhere near enough to account for the quantity of dark matter that has to be out there. It was a good theory, but observation rules it out at this point.

Where did you get the idea that Dark matter has a repulsive effect?

Why do you want Black Holes to have a repulsive effect?

You were saying that dark matter AND dark energy were both comprised of black holes. Dark energy has a net repulsive effect, and likely has absolutely nothing to do with black holes. Sorry, if I wasn't clear there.

You need to look at star formations and their deaths.

A star will go through the process of making up elements upto Iron and Nickel.

Only very high mass stars get anywhere near producing iron in fusion reactions. The majority of stars aren't even massive enough to burn helium in their cores.

As these elements are formed in due time , the star's core decreases in mass and density and so is unable to hold together the stars envelope and it expands as in the red giants. In addition it is unable to control the release of heat from the inner core creating a vilatile area. The Iron layer undergoes fission reaction, breaking down to neutrons and forming a neutron core, releasing huge amounts of energy in an extremely short period. This enrgy sends shock waves exploding the star's solar envelope into what we call a supernova.

Low-mass stars tend to lose mass quite rapidly during their red giant phase, due to the intensity of hydrogen shell burning, and the unstable nature of helium burning once it begins (it tends to go in pulses). This is what triggers the ejection of the outer layers of the star, forming a planetary nebula. This leaves behind a stable, degenerate core of carbon/oxygen: a white dwarf.

Iron is the bottom of the nuclear energy 'well'. You can't get energy out of it, not with fission, not with fusion. This is why high-mass stars that accumulate an iron core die in supernova explosions. All the energy that would be holding the star up against gravitational collapse instead gets soaked up in photodisintigrating heavy nuclei. The core collapses, forcing electrons and protons to merge, forming neutrons and neutrinos. The neutrinos escape, carrying away even more energy, hastening the collapse, until neutron degeneracy stops it. The rest of the star falls in on this core, rebounds, then gets blasted apart by the shockwave and neutrino pulse. Supernova, and a neutron star remnant. Or if the star was very massive, a black hole. The neutrino pulse into the stellar envelope triggers further nuclear reactions: this is where a lot of the heavier elements come from.

The cycle from birth to death is something that needs to be looked at.

But! if the dating of the universe through the parts within are only 14 billion years than we could assume that the cycle is max 14 Billion years.

So even when we look at giant super cluster and we date them, we are really dating the parts within. Unable to date blackholes because we cannot see them.

But that's the problem. If the universe is eternal and cyclic, why is everything that we can see younger than 14 billion years old? Like I said before, the most numerous type of star has a lifespan ranging into the trillions of years, and these stars are so light, relatively speaking, that they can't even undergo a red giant phase when they do run out of fuel. Where are these trillion year old stars we should be seeing? It seems an unlikely coincidence that we just happen to be in a massive region of the universe where everything just happens to be the same age...

Or are you speaking of a Big Bang - Big Crunch sort of cycle, where the universe itself is destroyed and then recreated?

Some of these super glasters have been evolving since who knows when. It is so difficult to put a time on such super structures of the universe. My estimate and from other reading, I would say over 100 billion years.

Simulations based on CDM Big Bang theory result in the same sort of structure we see, all within 14 billion years. There isn't a need for a huge span of time like that, and no observations have ever shown anything that can be dated to be that old.

And yet when we try to date them, we get a date of 14 billion years, this is because of the recycling of matter. Old to new and new to old, in a never ending story.

If you think along the lines of the BB, than you will not open your mind to the possibilities.

The BB is just a theory only. No proven parts.

Everything in science that isn't an observation is 'just a theory'. And unlike other theories of cosmology, Big Bang theory's got observations and has made predictions that back it up.

But ! it did become THE standard model for some time.

It still is, and rightfully so. Nothing has ever made a decent challenge against it to date. I look forward to the day that something might, however... it'd be a revolution!

[astro_uk]

It seems that this thread is simply repeating most of the same rubbish espoused on Origins of the Universe (with the shining exception being Qev). As I have already explained on the other threads, there are no known GCs with ages greater than the age of the Universe. GCs are certainly some of the oldest structures in the Universe most of them forming within 1 Gyr of the BB. The reasons the ages didnt agree until about 5 years ago is the fact that the models that model how the spectra of stars changes with age was wrong, this problem has now been fixed. Oh and N body simulations show a GC would form in less than about 10 Myr. Im sure Captain_Cosmos that you have heard people say structures take too long to form in the Universe, however the only place I have ever seen this stated is on creationist websites , no proffesional astronomer that has looked at the issue would claim that.

Qev makes an excellent point about old stars, a low mass star of 0.085 x the mass of the Sun can live for a trillion years, so where are all of these old stars?

Harry you are yet to give any process that would cause a low mass star to somehow appear to be younger. You also do not seem to have any inkling of how you can take all this matter from black holes and turn it back into Hydrogen to start a new generation of star formation.

[Dr. Skeptic]

astro_uk:

It is nearly impossible to argue with a religion when “faith” is its focal point. To reiterate myself "proclaiming isn't proving". There are volumes posted here stating, " This is what I believe - nothing else is relevant"

I've review (left unnamed) postings on this blog and there is as much scientific understanding as there is valid scientific arguments ... little to none. Even if parts of the arguments are correct, they are right for the wrong reasons.

Sighting data sets that were proven wrong over a decade ago and not understanding or acknowledging why the arguments are invalid - repeatedly - is beyond comprehension. I've witnessed better "Blue Fairy" arguments.

There are a number of unification theories being developed by preeminent mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers. Without exception all theories have a number of qualities in common, one being space/time as a quantum unit, another is the absence of infinity as a required limit.

When arduous learning is resigned to effortless ignorance, I believe the cause is lost.

[harry]

Hello Astro

You said

Harry you are yet to give any process that would cause a low mass star to somehow appear to be younger. You also do not seem to have any inkling of how you can take all this matter from black holes and turn it back into Hydrogen to start a new generation of star formation

Excuse me, yes I have in previous posts.

You make statements, with words of rubbish.

I can give you all the information on star formation and black hole recycling and so on.

As for Black Holes there is alot of information on their evolution and the method of recycling by their JETS.

Please do not make silly statements, I do not want browny points.

I have my Ideas and I also respect others. Knowing quite well I could be wrong and vise versa.
=========================================
I picked the supernova because it take longer for that cycle than small stars. So why should I show you how a Low mass star look younger.

=============================================

Hello Qev

I know you have some info on what is happening out there.

Maybe your right.

But! read this on supernova

Photodisintegration
http://cosmos.swin.edu.au/lookup.html?e ... ntegration

Photodisintegration

Photodisintegration in a core-collapse supernova undoes hundreds of thousands of years of nuclear fusion by splitting the iron nuclei into helium nuclei and neutrons.

Photodisintegration occurs when a high-energy photon is absorbed by an atomic nucleus. The nucleus splits to form lighter elements, releasing a neutron, proton or alpha particle in the process.

During the core-collapse of a supernova, photodisintegration undoes hundreds of thousands of years of nuclear fusion by splitting the iron nuclei into helium nuclei and neutrons.

These helium nuclei are in turn split into protons and neutrons, the basic building blocks of elements, also through photodisintegration.

Thes links are for people who want info. This does not mean I agree with their statements. Cosmology is going through rapid info changes.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/p ... 812133.pdf
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... supernova/
http://www.aao.gov.au/images/general/su ... rames.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu ... rnova.html

Black Holes,,Stella evolution
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... _3cii.html

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/rcfta/an ... ode12.html

Do neutrinos drive the explosions of massive stars? One current idea is that this happens via the medium of plasma waves, but Stephen Hardy and Don Melrose have now demonstrated that this is not possible.

Star formatiion
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 2.000.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu ... imass.html


Observations of Star Formation Precursors
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/index.html

IN DUST CLOUD, RARE GLIMPSE OF NEW STAR ABORNING
http://dsnra.jpl.nasa.gov/origins/nyt.html

Anatomy of the Classical Nova Outburst
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... h_4a2.html

The Birth of Stars: Herbig-Haro Jets, Accretion and Proto-Planetary Disks
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html

1. Why and How Stars Evolve
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... ath_1.html

============================================

There are lots of ideas and theories out there.

But! not one completely explains the processes that are critical.

One of the most important info required is the structure of the inner core of any star.

Most scientists give us varies types, from He, C, O, Iron and neutron, and quarks and Preons.
He, C, O and Iron are seen to be part of the Core. But! in my opinion they are part of the Outer Core. The inner core must have some form of degenerated matter that is able to be compacted

The reason for this
1) The inner core must have a density so great that its gravity holds the star together and stops it from expanding as in the Giant Reds or similar.
2) Also the gravity controls the heat release from the inner core and outer core and prevents over heating.

He, C, O, Iron cannot be compacted to very high density compared to degenerated matter such as in neutrons.

Maybe I'm wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But! I always go on a LIMB.


Keep smiling its only a discussion

[astro_uk]

Alright Harry I'll bite, there are about a dozen fundamental problems with what your "opinions". The major one being a simple mis-understanding you have about the nature of Black hole jets. Black hole jets are not material being spewed out of a black hole, that is physically impossible. The jets are simply infalling material that is being redirected outwards by strong magnetic fields. (Before anyone starts the magnetic field comes from the accretion discs not the Black Hole).

So jets do not recycle anything, they are simply the same material that was falling in, now clearly energetically the mass that falls in must also be less than the mass that goes out, so you cannot use Black holes to recycle anything. About the only recycling that a black hole can do is to split up molecules back into their consituent elements, but as soon as the jet cools theyll probably recombine anyway.

You also misunderstand the physics of a stellar core, in any star undergoing fusion (i.e shining) the core cannot be any form of degenerate matter, if it was fusion would be impossible. Also all the models of stellar reactions work perfectly well without having to resort to degenerate matter, in the case of the Sun the observed solar neutrino flux clearly demonstrates that the essentialy picture we have is correct.

The only time you can get degenerate matter in a star is at the end of its life, after the red giant or supernovae phase, and this is simply because you no longer have fusion in the inner regions to provide enough energy to overcome the attraction of gravity, so you get a white dwarf, neutron star or Black hole (depending on the mass remaining).

I admire your desire to learn, but to much of what you read is out of date, conjecture or written by people with motivations other than the pure pursuit of knowledge. As cosmo_uk suggested, to keep abreast of where the state of art lies its well worth reading astro-ph, its updated daily (during the working week), and free. It also has peer-reviewed papers that usually you have to pay for, just make sure you only read ones saying Accepted by XXX, occasionally cranks manage to post on there to. I realise a lot of it will be over many peoples head, but usually anyone can understand the salient points of the abstract.


Who knows you may come across one of my papers sometime.
http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new

[harry]

Hello Astro

You say that I misunderstand stellar core. Boy! have got it wrong.

and as for Black Holes

again you have no idea of what you just said.

Before I give you more evidence, harcore, please read up.

You write so well, as though you say you know. Most that we have discussed are only theoretical.

I know what star formations are and I know all the current info on them.
=============================================

I'm suggesting a possible error in their findings, as to the inner core of stars.

What is the use in discussing known info?

You need to go on a limb and discuss issues in question with posssible options.

Maybe this link will help you
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

Quote:

The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, b) decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

Reactions like a) and b) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions b) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from b) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig.
shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

=======================================

Black Holes ,,,,,,,,,,,,you have the wrong info on them.

Matter is pulled into the disk of a black Hole. The matter that is ejected by the Black Hole is degenrated matter that reforms to atoms.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/25 ... les_green/
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... 10499.html

Massive Black Hole Stumps Researchers
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 40628.html

Surprising news about black holes
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _3277.html

[astro_uk]

Well Harry you have outdone yourself there.

Three of the articles you linked to say exactly what I have been trying to tell you:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/25 ... les_green/
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... 10499.html

Surprising news about black holes
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _3277.html

If you read a bit more closely, especially the last one

"One of the most striking properties of a black hole is its ability to expel jets at close to the speed of light. While it has long been expected that magnetic fields are crucial to this process, the latest simulations show for the first time how a field can be expelled from the accreting gas to create such a jet. "

I.e The magnetic field produced by the Accretion Disc is able to funnel some of the gas from the disc into two jets which point perpendicularly to the disc.

You'll notice at no point in any of these articles does anyone mention degenerate matter escaping from the black hole. There are two reasons for this 1. It is not required to fit the observations. 2. According to everthing known about General Relativity it is impossible.



As for the sun containing a neutron star, there are 3 important and easily verifiable reasons why this cannot be:

1. The Suns Mass. The Sun has a mass of 1 Msun by definition (or 2x10^30 kg if you prefer) to produce a neutron star you must have a mass of 1.4Msun. This is because you must have a sufficient amount of gravity to overcome the repulsion of electrons in the plasma and crush the electrons into the protons to form neutrons. There are no known neutron stars with mass less than this limit, and theoretically there cant be.

2. Helioseismology has been used to study the interior structure by looking at the sound waves that propagate through the sun. Again no neutron star.

3. Study of the output of the Sun in the electromagnetic radiation and through the observed solar neutrino flux shows that the sun produces all of its energy through the fusion of hydrogen to helium. Again no neutron star.

If you would like to find areas where there is still much to find out im happy to give you pointers to active research areas, but none of the so called problems you come up with are considered problematic by anyone working in the field.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Photodisintegration

Photodisintegration in a core-collapse supernova undoes hundreds of thousands of years of nuclear fusion by splitting the iron nuclei into helium nuclei and neutrons.

Photodisintegration occurs when a high-energy photon is absorbed by an atomic nucleus. The nucleus splits to form lighter elements, releasing a neutron, proton or alpha particle in the process.

During the core-collapse of a supernova, photodisintegration undoes hundreds of thousands of years of nuclear fusion by splitting the iron nuclei into helium nuclei and neutrons.

- These helium nuclei are in turn split into protons and neutrons, the basic building blocks of elements, also through photodisintegration.

I would like to see the science behind this proclamation.

- Fe has stable isotopes, one of the least likely elements to sustain fission, fusion, or nuclear decay.

- Pb 206, 207, 208 would be far more abundant in the universe do to its stability.

- Fe < 0.6% of (non-exotic) matter in the universe, incapable of producing enough H and He to sustain or account for the chemical balance of the universe.

- How does this matter escape the EH of a BH?

- I could write a book contesting the logic in that brief excerpt.

λίπασμα

[Qev]

Actually, that excerpt seems to be a reasonably accurate description of the process of photodisintegration, as far as I can tell, not actually being any sort of nuclear physicist or anything like that.

It's also not -entirely- true that fusion cannot occur in a degenerate stellar core. In fact, this is the beginning of the red giant phase in relatively low mass stars. The core density increases until it becomes electron-degenerate, until the temperature peaks high enough to trigger helium fusion.

Of course, this is in no way a means of 'temperature regulation'. Quite the opposite. Since pressure doesn't increase with temperature in degenerate matter, you end up with ever-increasing temperatures, leading to runaway fusion. This only stops when the temperature gets high enough to force the material out of its degenerate state, at which point it can expand, cool, and cease fusing.

This doesn't apply to neutron-degenerate matter, of course, so there's no fusion going on inside neutron stars that anyone's aware of.

And how many times do I have to point out that THERE IS NO SOLAR NEUTRINO PROBLEM. Geez.

[harry]

Hello Qev

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,I agree,,,,,,and we need to go deeper and seek more critical info.

======================================

Hello Astro

Like I said I'm not after browny points. I'm not after to do my self over.

You need to read between the lines. I advice you to seek more info on black holes.

All comapct cores have degerated matter even black holes

Progressive compaction from Neutron,,,,,,,,to quarks,,,,,,,to preons,,,,,,,to subatomic particals (maybe neutrinos) in black holes.

This degenerated matter we cannot ever see coming out, because we see it after as photons, protons, hydrogen and so on, when it ejected out of a black hole.

The workings of a jet are expalined in Plasma cosmology.

You read the links and saw what you want.
I will come back to you with more info,,,,,,,,,,today I'm taking the kids out.
=============================================

Dr Skeptic

Google and find the information, what ever info you have is not allowing you to see what I'm trying to explain.

You can write as many books as you like, but! write with facts and probable assumtions rather than what you think.

=============================================

I asssume to be wrong at all times, and seek info to prove to myself
I can stop my discussions and just agree with you people.
and wait for a few years when we do have this information confirmed.

=============================================

When we look into deep field images 13 billion light years and see a black hole 10 billion times the size of our sun and an estimated 10^67 years life span, one wanders how the Big Bangers estimate that the universe is 13 billion years old.

[Dr. Skeptic]

This degenerated matter we cannot ever see coming out, because we see it after as photons, protons, hydrogen and so on, when it ejected out of a black hole.

I understand what you are posing - it cannot happen!
The only know substance capable of escaping a black hole is gravity - nothing else!
The jets are a result of matter approaching the black hole, not from within!

If light (a massless photon) cannot escape a BH, how can hydrogen? The hydrogen's speed would need to be >c.

[ta152h0]

Gravity is not qa substance, it is a reaction.

[BMAONE23]

Gravities effectual power is ruled by the dominant mass responsible for its generation. The greater the mass the greater the gravity. I think we all agree on this point.

How gravity gets dispersed throughout the universe is up to speculation as nothing can be proven through direct experimentation yet.

I feel that gravity is produced by the total quanta of mass in any given area. greater / denser mass = greater gravity. But I feel it is acting through an unseen dimension.

The effects of gravity, as most speculate, travels instantaneously throughout the universe. This would indicate that it travels faster than light which is thought to be impossible given the restrictions placed on physics in our 4 dimensional universe. So gravity must not only be its own separate dimension but must act upon our three physical dimensions through a separate dimension where light speed is not a factor (lets call it "Sub space" or beneath space for the sake of example). Now gravity gets populated through Sub Space and is acted upon (pulled into real space) by any mass. The greater the mass, the greater the tie in with the gravitational dimension. As distance from mass increases, the interaction decreases until a state of equilibrium is reached between masses.

Does gravity truly escape a Black Hole??? Or is it merely only an extremely strong tie to it given the mass. It could only truly escape it if it were ruled upon by a different dimension and acting through another separate dimension where our physical restrictions didn't apply.

[astro_uk]

Hi All

Just thought I would clear up something you mentioned at the end of your post Harry.

When we look into deep field images 13 billion light years and see a black hole 10 billion times the size of our sun and an estimated 10^67 years life span, one wanders how the Big Bangers estimate that the universe is 13 billion years old.

This is clearly a rather foolish argument here. Just because something has a very long lifespan doesnt mean it can't form quickly, most humans take 9 months to form but live for ~70 years. (Clearly a facetious remark of my own there). I dont see why you would have a problem with something forming in 700 million years (13.7 -13 Gyr) but taking 10^67 years to decay. This is just the result of the time it takes a large BH to decay by Hawking radiation, or did you misunderstand and think that they meant the BH was 10^67 years old 13 Gyr ago? Just curious really.

There is an issue here that I think a lot of people just dont grasp, just how huge the Universe is. Huge BHs early in the Universe fit in nicely with what we know about the early universe. In the early Universe as today there were density fluctuations, BHs and galaxies would tend to form in the densest regions of space where gravity could quickly go to work. It may be that BHs like the one in the article formed in some of the densest regions possible at the time (like 10 sigma deviations from the average density), but because space is so large there would be many of these. Because these BHs became the brightest objects in the Universe at this point its hardly surprising that we can still see many of them. Its called a selection effect, we tend to see the brightest objects, which are also the most rare.

[Qev]

Regarding black holes and gravity, apparently fields are not bound to the same restrictions with respect to event horizons that mass/energy are. The gravitational field generated by the mass of a black hole has no problems 'escaping', since it's not comprised of 'real' particles. The same goes for electric fields, as well, so theoretically one could have an electrically charged black hole (though considering the strength of the electromagnetic force, this would rapidly be neutralized). Honestly, the math behind this is way beyond me.

What I'm curious about is why a GR black hole (as opposed to a MECO) cannot have an intrinsic magnetic field. I suppose it has to do with pointlike singularities being too small to form a dipole or something...

[BMAONE23]

Maybe MECO's aren't as condensed as GR black holes. The greater the density of the object, the less likely the particles making up that object will have the ability to magnetically align to form the Dipole effect. Greater pressure = greater chaos.