Starship Asterisk*

How can you see something behind something you can't see ?

ta152h0 wrote:How can you see something behind something you can't see ?

I think it's easier than seeing something you can't see behind something you can. Whoa. That's confusing.

However, if a star we can see happened to pass directly behind the black hole, we might not see it dim as part of its light is captured, but rather brighten as light that normally is not cast in our direction is bent in our direction by the gravity of the black hole as it passes by.

At least, it would happen something like that. The basic idea was used to test general relativity in 1919.

iamlucky13 is right. Black holes are black not because they are big black balls (like a big ball of coal say) but because the mass they have is contained in a singularity. So from a very real perspective there is nothing to be seen, all we can see is the influence of the gravity of the mass contained in the BH.

A star passing directly behind the BH at the centre of the MW would likely appear to brighten significantly for exactly the reason iamlucky13 suggests, gravitational lensing.

ta152h0 wrote:How can you see something behind something you can't see ? :D

What is the definition of "can't see"? If it is that something is transparent, then obviously we should be able to see something on the other side. That however is not the definition here, so I think that since objects on the other side can't be seen, we can see the black hole also, but just in a special definition of "seeing".

I am not saying that very clearly, but I hope everyone gets the idea.

Confused wrote:

ta152h0 wrote:How can you see something behind something you can't see ?

What is the definition of "can't see"? If it is that something is transparent, then obviously we should be able to see something on the other side. That however is not the definition here, so I think that since objects on the other side can't be seen, we can see the black hole also, but just in a special definition of "seeing".

I am not saying that very clearly, but I hope everyone gets the idea.

The black hole cannot be seen because it's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape, not even light. So it appears black because any light that may be inside cannot escape. Even a whole star cannot withstand it. It just gets eaten up. Feed me...
Should a star pass behind the black hole then it's light may not pass through it. However, light from the star behind will be bent around the gravitational well and we might see that.
This is my understanding of the 'lensing' effect.
There's a similar effect where light from a distant star could be see when we knew the star was in fact behind our sun. But our sun's gravitational well bent the light so we could view it. (I think this was an experiment carried out to prove part of Einstein's theory of relativity).

Andy Wade wrote:The black hole cannot be seen because it's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape, not even light.

That has been said many times before.

Andy Wade wrote:So it appears black because any light that may be inside cannot escape.

Saying "appears black" implies it can be seen.

What I am saying is that since we can't see objects on the other side, we in effect see the object.

Hello All

In order to understand what makes up a black hole we need to investigate more of the compact star core.



Preon Trinity - A Schematic Model of Leptons, Quarks and Heavy Vector Bosons
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai ... ph/0208135
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format ... ph/0208135

Quarks
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... rk.html#c6


Atomic structure
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... on.html#c1

Exchange Forces
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... hg.html#c1

Fundamental Forces
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... or.html#c2

Electron-Positron Annihilation Provides Evidence of Three Colors for Quarks

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... id.html#c2

Evidence Found for New Form of Ultra-Dense Matter
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 20410.html

Astronomers announced Wednesday the discovery of evidence for a new state of matter heavier than any previously known, equivalent in density to stuffing all of Earth into an auditorium

I think the answer to compact star cores and ultra dense degenerated plasma matter which can prevent light from escaping is through the science of the forces within the atom or should I say between the subatomic particals.

The Swarm
APOD: 2005 January 28 - The Swarm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050128.html


In respect to the make up of black holes. The seed in many cases(but not limited) is from a large star that has under gone a supernova. The Iron build up is broken down by high energy photons released by the core of the existing star to Helium to hydrogen to protons to neutrons. In smaller stars a neutron core is formed if there is greater amount of neutrons formed, these neutrons are broken down to quarks, creating the next stage, a quark composite and possible a preon quark composite and if sufficient mass is present light will not be able to escape the strong gravitaional, electromanetic and the strong forces that are present in the nucleus of an atom. In actual fact the core is a nucleon large body acting as one.

Hypernova
Cosmos: The SAO Encyclopedia
http://cosmos.swin.edu.au/lookup.html?e ... connection


The origin of our solar system is from a supernova leaving behind a neutron core composite that created in time a solar envelope.

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2006...gsInserted.pdf

Growing Supermassive Black Holes from Seeds
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _9824.html
The above link is OK, but reference to the Big Bang has put them on the wrong track.

How to find a black hole
http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-black- ... _7420.html

Puny black holes can eject Milky Way's stars
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... ef=dn10020

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

Comapring size of compact cores to our sun

Neutron star 10Kms dia.
Quark star 3 m dia
Preon star 400 mm dia V= .0335 M3

If the black hole is made from preon particals.
1 million times V= .03 * 10^6 = 30,000 m3


5 million V= .03 * 5 * 10^6 = 150,000 m3
1 billion V= .03 * 10^ 3 * 10^6 = 3 * 10^7 m3

M87 has a black hole mass about 3 billion that of our sun.

3 billion V= .03 * 3 *10^3 ^10^6 = 9* 10^7

Can someone calculate the radius I cannot find my calculator.

I could be wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,but than again???

I am making one assumption Harry; that the first 3 lines are each equal to one solar mass, yes?

Neutron star 10Kms dia.
Quark star 3 m dia
Preon star 400 mm dia V= .0335 M3

===

4/3 pi r3 = V of a sphere

4/3 pi = 4.1887865 x .2 meters cubed ( 0.008) = 0.0335102 m3


If the black hole is made from preon particals.
1 million times V= .03 * 10^6 = 30,000 m3

I get ; V= 0.0335102 m3 * 10^6 = 33,510.2 m3

for 3 billion , x 3000 more.

33,510.2 x 3,000 = 100,530,600 m3 = 3billion solar masses of preon


M87 has a black hole mass about 3 billion that of our sun.

4/3 pi r3 = 100,530,600 m3

r3 = 100,530,600 m3 divided by 4.1887865

r3 = 23,999,934

What's the trick to figure a cube root ???
( tried a few and interpolated )

288.5 m = 24,012,504 m3

dat close enuf ?

( 288.4 m = 23,987,543 m3 )

I am reluctant to be a pest, but (now I'll be a pest !)
288 meters in radius is not anywhere close to being a singularity,
now is it ? LOL

As all-powerful as gravity is, and it is the most powerful of all !!!
it is still being frustrated in its attempt to be all in one place.

The Undivided is still being frustrated by something !
What is it !!! That's our homework for tomorrow evening, as John Dobson would say !

After all 3 billion solar masses is just a drop in the proverbial bucket,
when considering how much mass is in our 'awareable universe'.

What would be the size of that preon ball ?
Would that give us a clue to what the gravitational forces would be at that juncture?

To go another step in thought;
Is there a way to correspond that size preon ball
to the rest mass of the proton ?
As protons are theorized to have a correspondence of rest mass to the totality of mass within the awareable universe,
is there a way to reverse engineer something from all of this?

(damn I can't click drag a PDF)

"The two preceding paragraphs implicate that gravitationally induced structures should exist on all length scales, at least those being stable. We have previously shown that "preon stars" can exist, and are stable. There is nothing magical about neutrons making them the last in line as constituents of cosmic compact objects, as previously believed. But then there can be nothing magical about preons either. If the " desert" of particle physics in reality is populated by particles and sub-structure on many scales, it must be possible for even more compact objects than preon stars to exist, as stability will be assured in some corner of parameter space.

... There are, in fact, several independent hints, which when taken together strongly point towards the conclusion that black holes can never actually form....We purpose a much stronger cosmic censorship conjecture: when fundamental microscopic physics is taken into proper account it prevents the very formation and existence of black holes.

(seen in the language of gravitational field lines, the gravitational radiation effect will be larger the denser the field lines, as the gradient then increases, but as the area of a spherical shell increases in step with how the field lines decrease in r, the effect is independent of the size of the presumptive black hole. So even a very large black hole with an arbitrarily small actual density and horizon curvature is prohibited.)

Yes Virginia, something fundamental is preventing the Undivided from becoming truly undivided.

Hello Kovil

Thank you for doing that.

Why do you think that a black hole has a singularity?

If matter makes up the so call black hole, than it becomes a finite object controlled by the forces of subatomic particals.

Maybe we should stop using the word black hole because people see it as a well and not as an object having extreme density 10^35 or so.

a black hole does not have a singularity, it is a bloomin' singularity. That cannot ever be described in cartesian coordinates and is the solution of an mathematical equation. Pass the ice cold one and let's ruminate

Hello ta152ho

it is a bloomin' singularity

What makes you think so?


I know you can get maths to show the singularity.

But! how do you get finite particals to go to an infinite point?

who said there are finite particles in a mathematical solution ? A black hole is not a " case of beer ". Black hole is just a term coined to quickly announce a result to the scientific community without using the terminology " I don't know what the hell this thing is ", Call it a cow if you wish. It is almost analogous to a center of mass problem in a Statics class.

See Harry's first link, scroll down to 3rd PDF
"A hierarchy of cosmic compact objects - without black holes" ; pre print PDF
see the graphs on page 8 and 9;

Harry, 'black hole' is the first label that stuck with the media.
Maybe the 'black hole of Calcutta' was the connotative reference; thence from which no one ever returns, or returns the same.
Actually Nature abhors a black hole !!

'Gravity well' is cumbersome and 'singularity' spins funny, it's actually zero dimensions.

here we go; the graph on pg 9 shows how compact objects never cross the 50/50 line to get into blackhole territory of mass-to-size ratio.

So you are correct in that black holes never exist, and they are simply extreme compact objects trying to reach that unreachable ideal state. Black hole refers to the condition of light being soaked up and its being unseen, or unseeable. Black holes need a new name!

As the field density of the gravity field gets stronger, there is a synchrotron radiation effect that bleeds off the energy and that stops the field from becoming strong enough to squash into a singularity, ever; very much like the way mass increases to prevent baryonic matter from ever reaching the speed of light. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it further. It takes an infinite amount of matter to make the gravity field stronger, so it never makes singularity.

The construction of the universe is exceedingly well balanced. Opposing exponential curves limit the all powerful forces to never achieve their end purpose, and thusly the universe survives to live another day.

Maybe not intelligent design per se; Temperance is definitely involved,
14 in the Major Arcana. This is how God can make a stone so heavy He can't lift it ! and not be in violation of the rules of design !!! hahaha

That is actually a very important paper Harry. As the gravity field density, forces the synchrotron radiation effect of the gravity field to bleed off, that is where the power for the central galaxy jets comes from !!!

Recycling gravity energy, in a highly directed ejection, which is opposite of the general attraction of gravity as a field.

I call it synchrotron radiation, because that is a good metaphor description using something we already understand as a template to mimic the actual effect in its morphology. As synchrotron radiation is highly scattered in direction, the gravity well radiation is highly focused in its departure.

Tomorrow will show if I should delete this post as it might be backasswards in its thinking. Just a wild idea at this point.

Harry , give me more maths to do , please, I need the work !
You be the conceptualist and I'll do the grunt work.

Hello Kovil

You made me smile, not only because of your joke, but your ability to think and not to be held back by standard thinking.

You want some maths.

Calculate the age of the Milky Way.

How do you do that?

Start by assuming that there was an active so call balck hole that started to eject matter forming an elliptical galaxy than the black hole slowed down giving enough time for gravity from the composite galaxy and centre black hole to reform it into a spiral galaxy.

or start where ever you want.

Do not assume that the Big Bang theory is a start.

=======================================
Did you know that the word galaxy is Greek, meaning Milky Way

my conceptual cosmology is different from the standard model,

In the begining there were large clouds of protons and electrons.

These slowly gathered into large galaxy size clumps.

Individual stars formed first, as the cloud continued to draw together and condense. Eventually an agreed upon center of mass developed, and a massive central domain ensued. It took quite a while for the central black hole to develop as the accretion mechanism was severely thwarted by resistive exponential curves of gravity energy radiative mechanisms as well as electron degeneracy pressures.

Once the central gravity well became massive enough it developed a magnetic structure surrounding it that reached almost to where the present day visible material perimeter exists. This weak magneto-hydro-dynamic (MHD) field had 2 maybe 4 lines of force. It helped to organize the very light protons and electrons and the spiral arms developed and condensed along these lines of magnetic force.

Through subsequent iterations of nova and condensation, populations of stars grew and their percentage of heavy elements increased as nova production and scattering of heavy elements enriched the galaxy.

The central galactic core has a wind that blows the light particles toward a halo area somewhere near the perimeter. It may actually be beyond the visible perimeter and form a hovering layer that is not particularly visible.

I have heard estimates that say the Milky Way makes 5 revolutions in a billion years. (after 50 years I see little difference ! , my jury is still out on that one.)

My feeling is things are much older than mainstream science thinks.

Nova production of heavy elements and spectroscopic analysis of starlight is mostly used for age determination, in my understanding. However I suspect there are much too many heavy elements in this planet Earth to account for the young age mainstream science allows for this section of the galaxy and universe. I have no maths to refute their estimates tho , alas.

If I was to generate an age for this galaxy I think I would start with the central mass, and how long could that form in, is there a minimum time necessary for its formation and it can't be younger than that.

Doing a statistical analysis for the region of our spiral arm neighborhood, how fast can novas make the area as dusty in heavy elements as we observe? Is there any way that heavy elements could be reduced over time so that a 2-3% showing is actually a result of a much longer environment? Can galaxies continue on and remain fairly similar looking? Like water going down a drain, the spiral arms remain consistent with the central gravity well's MHD dynamo production, like standing waves in the drain water. Can the central starlight radiative pressure (solar winds) keep pushing light elements towards the perimeter where they condense and form stars, which as they lose momentum by tidal action drift towards the central region. The heavier elements are drawn in and the lighter elements blown outward, making a merry-go-round recycling action within the galaxy, as it retains its general appearance longterm. This would allow the central gravity-well/black-hole to have an age of 50 billion years, while arm structure stars continue to have a 2-3% heavy element proportionality.

Only galactic mergers and acquisitions would be the serious affectors of galactic shapes. As well as near misses and pass-throughs.

I can imagine M87 to be 150 billion years old.

In light of the graph on page 9 today, it seems evident that nature abhors a black hole, and galactic central structures may take much longer to form than we presently theorize. (now can I find some data to support my conclusions ! that's the task at hand . LOL )

If I use a bunch of incorrect assumptions however derived, I will most likely not reach a correct age for our galaxy. That is the most difficult part of archeoastronomy, what formulas and hypothesis are actually correct. Every 500 years science throws out 90-95% of what it thought in the past to be correct ! Just ask Paul Fireabend. (scientific american had a dynamite interview with him, i saved it somewhere in my files out in the barn and it's -5C right now, so another day to dig that one out; from the 80's i think)

I now know how I will die; I will have typed so long APOD will have disconnected me and when I hit submit it will lose the entire posting and my heart will burst in fear of having to type it all over again !! LOL
It sure speeds up when I suddenly think, will it be successful during the pause after submit.
He died from a subscript domain typographical error.

you are making a hell of a mistake by stating/implying novae produce heavy elements. you are lucky to get lithium out of a nova explosion ( Prof Brownlee at the University of Washington ). Where there have been studied novae explosions, I have never read anything heavy was detected in the expanding shell.

In reading your post again, Harry, I now understand you see ellipticals as the younger , and they then mature into spirals. This is understandable. I was seeing ellipticals as a more rare form and they lasted longer. Spirals being the easier to form, there are more, but ellipticals are more difficult to dismantle so they are older, some of them. M87 has been there so long it is attracting quite a crowd of admirers ! soon to eaten for lunch and dinner.
A globular cluster of globular clusters is its central region it looks like to me. Those aren't stars , they are globular clusters in pincushion orbits. If so, what a place to have the Seat of the Empire. It would always be blazing daylight for the bureaucrats to do their paperwork. The govt could save lots on the light bill.

Our Milky Way's galactic center radio arc and the new infrared photos are lending new understanding of what's in our closest backyard for study of a massive mass-structure. MHD as DNA in the ISM, one of my better posts from last year. It's on APOD somewhere. Well enough for now, taa./

Ok Wolf, what is it that produces the heavy elements and scatters them around the galaxy ? Supernova maybe?

Exactly, and even Hypernovae, which is what some think Eta Carnae will end up as. As far as the speed of dispersion, SN1987 will reveal in time. That data may still be impouded while the scientists studying the event have not made any announcements.

My understanding was that carbon and oxygen can form from helium fusion in a red giant, which largely accounts for their relative abundance. Lithium is lighter, but not the natural product of any of the lighter fusion events, and is rare for that reason. The novae and especially supernovae are needed to account adequately for the presence of significant amounts of heavier elements like nickel and iron.

Hi Wolf,

I don't mean to sound argumentative or combative, tone of voice doesn't come thru the keyboard well at times. I use the word nova too loosely most of the time, sorry.

How long would it take for our neighborhood to become as dusty with heavy elements as we notice we have? That gives an age clue, then is there any mechanism that would clear some of that and leave the lighter elements for new stars to form from, and maintain the level of heavy elements we see? In this way our age could be considerably more than currently thought.

It might work oppositely, and blow away the lighter elements and leave the heavy stuff, so we are younger.

I may have to leave it an open question and sojourn on and keep collecting data for a few more lifetimes before getting back to you on this one !!! Cheers ! and pass that stellar cold one will you please ! Stella !

(in Egypt there is a beer called Stella, and at the wrap party for the film Ruby Cairo, or You Belong To Me, or Deception - it had 3 titles! during its lifetime of pre-to-post production ! ; Someone (who shall remain nameless) began to shout to the barkeeper to bring more bottles of Stella, in a Stanley _____ (that Marlo Brando role in Streetcar Named Desire) husky loud pleading voice,,, Stellaaaaaaa !

<<<<How long would it take for our neighborhood to become as dusty with heavy elements as we notice we have? That gives an age clue, then is there any mechanism that would clear some of that and leave the lighter elements for new stars to form from, and maintain the level of heavy elements we see? In this way our age could be considerably more than currently thought. >>>

good question- I need to ruminate this one for a few days before I say something that would reveal my ignorance to a whole bunch of people. It is possible for elements of " different weights " to coexist but gravity would segregate and coalesce into substances. Hydrogen and helium are considered metals but try welding hydrogen with a helium rod. Answering your question is like preparing a lesson plan. An ice cold one would help. The assumption that heavy elements came from an event predating our sun and in the vicinity is not supported as "stuff " permeates the entire universe and is dispersed everywhere. I am hoping a chunk of gold from Eta Carinae hypernova will land in my backyard.

Hello All

The elements

All the elements upto Iron are formed during the life time of the star (our sun) by the process within. The elements seperate into layers Iron around the core and Hydrogen and Helium near the surface.

The heavier elements are formed during a supernova. Just googls and you will find the process.

Just before the supernova

Iron is broken down by fission to Helium, high energy photons released by the inner core of the star.

The inner core has a critical mass that holds it together and controlling the heat loss to the solar envelope. Once this control is out of control high energy photons are realeased and the same time it loses the hold on to the solar envelope allowing it to further expand.

The Iron layer that took billions of years to form, surrounds the outer core and in a very short time undergoes a chain reaction forming Helium to neutrons, if suffiecient neutrons are formed a neutron star compact core is formed, if not there is a total supernova leaving no core no star.

If there is enough mass a possible black hole maybe formed from the over supply of neutrons that change the temp and increase of strong forces between the subatomic particals, breakig down neutrons to quarks to preon particals creating a high density degerated matter that prevents light from escaping.