Starship Asterisk*

I have a question (actually, several) about Black Holes:

If these things are at the center of some galaxies, does this explain the whirlpool shape that we see in images? I think of the way water drains out of a bathtub -- is that what's going on, on a galactic scale, except it's light and matter and everything, not just water, being pulled into the hole?

If this is happening, I imagine it's an amazing process at the hole -- but in pictures the galaxies always seem so serene. In my bathtub, as the last bit of water runs out the vortex is more swishy and steep-sided; more violent. Is this true of a black hole?

Are there examples of galaxies that are mostly, like 80%, gone into the black hole? Where does the stuff go when it runs out the drain?

Finally, if time, matter, energy, and lost sunglasses all ultimately go into a black hole in the center of a "doomed" galaxy, doesn't this mean that the amount of "stuff" in the universe is decreasing? Or do black holes just recycle stuff back into the universe? If so, it would seem that we have black holes to suck stuff in, but where are the "white holes" that spew the same amount of stuff back out? (I base this on the idea that nothing is ever really lost or added to the universe, that it's a closed system with a lot of activity within the fixed amount of stuff inside.)

Ok, didn't mean to get all Hawking on you, but these are my questions and I'd love to know your responses. Also, the idea of a "white hole" and a return system that counterbalances the process of a black hole is sort of a theory of mine that I'd appreciate not being grabbed and claimed as one's own...nobody can copyright reality, but the ideas we use to discuss reality need to be recognized as the work of the people who take the time to express them, don't-ya-think?

, , , or in other words, inalienable rights to intellectual materials.

well 1st of all since black holes have horizons, distant observer will never see stuff going inside (it will take him infinite time to wait for that), so things in galaxy cores aren't really holes. but they are obviously pretty close

Hello rclay

The general view is that all matter including EMR are lost into a black hole,but for the slight release of radiation Hawking radiation. See Michaels link

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carne ... e_999.html

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


In my opinion Black Holes are compacted matter that shows similar behaviour as other compacted matter that is able to release energy and matter from creating spirals from within rather than from out. These spirals can only be explained by Plasma science and the forces required to produce these are part of the nucleon and serve to reform galaxies and recycle matter.

Why is this so? Well not that I think along the BBT. But the BBT allows such motion in theory as part of the Origin of the universe.
The links above refer to the BBT as part of their logic and computer model simulation.

I do not think along the BBT, but of a recycling universe.

Michael Mozina wrote:...as a programmer by trade, I think this is very interesting computer simulation that you might appreciate.

Why, it's not that you or me can download and run it at home.

Three cheers for harry, the BBT theory......Bah humbug.
It even sounds dumb.
Long, long ago there was this real big bang, and that's how the universe came into being. Get real !

THX1138 said

Three cheers for harry, the BBT theory......Bah humbug.
It even sounds dumb.
Long, long ago there was this real big bang, and that's how the universe came into being. Get real !

If it was that simple we could all just think along the same thoughts.

History is repeated by people and not by history.

harry wrote:Hello rclay

The general view is that all matter including EMR are lost into a black hole,but for the slight release of radiation Hawking radiation. See Michaels link

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carne ... e_999.html

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


In my opinion Black Holes are compacted matter that shows similar behaviour as other compacted matter that is able to release energy and matter from creating spirals from within rather than from out. These spirals can only be explained by Plasma science and the forces required to produce these are part of the nucleon and serve to reform galaxies and recycle matter.

Why is this so? Well not that I think along the BBT. But the BBT allows such motion in theory as part of the Origin of the universe.
The links above refer to the BBT as part of their logic and computer model simulation.

I do not think along the BBT, but of a recycling universe.

Fortunately, modern astronomy (etc) is conducted on bases that are rather more solid than the subjective opinions of one Asterisk Cafe regular ...

But, let's not jump to conclusions; harry, would you be so kind as to provide us with references to papers showing that "These spirals can only be explained by Plasma science and the forces required to produce these are part of the nucleon and serve to reform galaxies and recycle matter"?

Papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, of course.

Hello Neried

If it is that simple I would just copy and paste.

At this present moment, I'm trying to get my head around plasma science and the properties of plasma to explain the issues.

There is so much info on the subject.

Google for plasma cosmology and the electric universe.

I have not originated the thoughts along plasma cosmology.

Smile, I hope some scientists out there, drop in and give us a front line explanation.

As for my opinion. Do your own research.

harry wrote:Hello Neried

If it is that simple I would just copy and paste.

At this present moment, I'm trying to get my head around plasma science and the properties of plasma to explain the issues.

There is so much info on the subject.

Google for plasma cosmology and the electric universe.

I have not originated the thoughts along plasma cosmology.

Smile, I hope some scientists out there, drop in and give us a front line explanation.

As for my opinion. Do your own research.

The trouble is harry, astrophysicists have done the research, and found there's nothing in plasma cosmology (PC) and electric universe (EU) ideas*.

Worse, as we have discussed here, and has also been discussed elsewhere, much of the PC and EU material that you find on internet websites could be charitably described as pseudo-science (in fact, much of it is downright anti-scientific).

If you want to discuss the extent to which modern astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology), as reflected in the papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, or conference proceedings, is a science in some general sense (or the extent to which your own views on how these fields of study should be conducted constitute 'science'), may I suggest that this Cafe is the wrong place? What you need is a forum which discusses the history and philosophy of science, such as this one.

And, as you well know, plenty of scientists have indeed dropped in here, and given readers of the Asterisk Cafe "a front line explanation" ... PC and EU ideas are not consistent with the relevant observational and experimental results.

*At least, not with regard to the material presented in the Cafe, by folk such as yourself.

Hello Neried

I have read the above posts.

You said

The trouble is harry, astrophysicists have done the research, and found there's nothing in plasma cosmology (PC) and electric universe (EU) ideas*.

I see no evidence that tells me that Plasma Cosmology has nothing to offer.

Please supply such papers.

Over 95% of the universe is Plasma, is it not logical that we study its properties.

Plasma properties hold the key to many issues.

Subjective or non-subjective, that is the question
In any event, much thanks to Harry for his link to the philosophy of science, a very good overview; in my opinion, of the inherent problems within scientific theory etc. The BBT ? But it seems likely; to me, that perhaps plasma cosmology, black holes and some type of mass expansion; or BBT, if you will. Along with a possible host of other variables as yet to be dreamed of in the minds of humans created this universe. What the most prestigious peer reviewed papers have to say is inconsequential until each and every theory proposed is fully explored and driven to an absolute end that no one can dispute. As per Harry’s link /
Leave noting to far fetched or unreasonable be overlooked, they all could be correct? History is full of things that were proven to be true that no one dreamed possible of being so.
And
I believe the proper quote was
Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat it



I never met a weapon I didn’t like ( Ronald Regan ) 1989

harry wrote:I see no evidence that tells me that Plasma Cosmology has nothing to offer.

Please supply such papers.

I have my theory of quantum turboperplexism dealing with issues of subatomic intelligence. Could you please supply papers saying my theory has nothing to offer?

Makc Bucking for a job a moderator of “ Bad astronomy “…just kidding
But it’s kind-of a big universe out there / And / everyone does have there issues and all..... None the less, I wouldn’t put anything out of the realm of possibilities….Not even…..Sub atomic intelligence
What‘s with this site, everyone taking shots at other peoples ideas…..wow………..
Be that as it may, to get back to the question posted by rclay.
I’ve read on one of the links on this thread that black holes do not suck things in “ unless one were to be on the wrong side of town “ the event horizon side. And that it’s possible for planets, stars and etc to actually be in orbit much like we / exactly as we are around our local star. So
If black holes don’t suck things in, how to they grow? Just whatever happens to get to close to them, how often would one figure that to happen?

why, my theory penetrates the universe on its deepest level, by studying subatomic intelligence, we are getting closer to the essence of entity also referred to as God, entity so powerful that it not only shapes the Universe as we know it, but also underlying laws (like all those things about quantum mechanics that some people find weird). It makes perfect sense, this thing is everywhere in Universe (dark energy) and it obviously cannot be tested in any lab on Earth, because it interacts with matter only when it feels like, and in a way it wants.

On the 2nd note, before you asked, it is the job of engineers to make up stupid formulas, my theory is about ideas and so can do just fine without them, so don't ask for math. If the potential of this theory is not immediately obvious to you, it could only be because you are closed-minded atheistically biased idiot, which I think you are not, of course, right? So you have to see how this theory is about to open new era in science next week.

MAKC,

Sounds alot like "THE FORCE" mentioned in Star Wars. In and around everything and with the ability to affect everything.

what can I say, Lucas was getting somewhere... unfortunately, I cannot elaborate any more, without my ass being slapped by the Nereid.

THX1138 wrote:What‘s with this site, everyone taking shots at other peoples ideas

Yep, in the past there was some discussion about how to deal with it, I was all for explicitly forbidding any sorts of such attacks AND enforcing it, but Nereid went other way, she forbids discussion of anything not published in scientific media AND DOES NOT enforce it, hence the chaos continues

MAKC

I wouldn’t advise holing my breath on that one / A new era in science next week.

Every matter that was sucked inside the black hole will deatomized..(all the atoms,neutrons n electrons would be crushed n become as,Quarks..(not sure about the spelling..),this is what my teacher told me,and,if an astronaut tried to enter the black hole,the gravitational force inside the black hole will pull the astronauts head inside the event horizon n the outside gravity of the astronaut will be pulling the legs of the astronaut..(just like a taffy..),n,if it there was a robot that is used to explore a black hole..the robot,would be destroyed to infinite density..

Thank you for that info zeilouz

I cannot find the words to describe my thoughts on your statement ;

“ A robot would be destroyed to infinite density “

Other than to say that you are absolutely correct and that I’m certain your reply is appreciated by many others besides myself.
I would also like to say that I think it is wonderful that you are interested in cosmology, I look forward to reading your next post.
Good day.

Hello All


Quarks make up Neutrons and Protons.
Quarks
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/quarks.html

Quark star

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020414.html

Neutron stars are probably the main compacted matter. Most is theoretical until further research can confirm.

Preon stars are very theoretical. Preon particles make up quarks.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 0417v1.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 93acda7028

In the context of the standard model of particle physics, there is a definite upper limit to the density of stable compact stars. However, if a more fundamental level of elementary particles exists, in the form of preons, stability may be re-established beyond this limiting density. We show that a degenerate gas of interacting fermionic preons does allow for stable compact stars, with densities far beyond that in neutron stars and quark stars. In keeping with tradition, we call these objects “preon stars”, even though they are small and light compared to white dwarfs and neutron stars. We briefly note the potential importance of preon stars in astrophysics, e.g., as a candidate for cold dark matter and sources of ultra-high energy cosmic rays, and a means for observing them.

http://sirius.mt.luth.se/~lassew/AO1/mt ... entist.htm



If a black hole can be formed than why not Quarks and Preon stars, the lectromagnetic forces reequired to beep these particals stable are strong enough to prevent light from escaping. density 10^17

Their calculations suggest a preon star would form when matter reached a density of about 1017 tonnes per cubic centimetre. This makes preon balls even more likely to have formed in dense regions of the big bang fireball than in collapsing stars. To be stable, a preon star would have to have a radius of between roughly a tenth of a millimetre and a metre, and a mass up to 100 times that of the Earth (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410417). However, these stars might not emit much light, which could explain why they have not been spotted, they say.

Got to go.

Just starting to learn about compacted matter.

Hehe...thx..^.^,

I also thought what happens to the light source if they were sucked inside the black hole?

Light does consist of seven colours,right?
Blue,Orange,Red,Yellow,Purple(two more i forgot..!!!)

When light travels through the black hole,the light will change it colour from the their first colour to red..

for exp,the light from the sun was blue n after they were sucked in to the black hole they will turn to red..

Hmm..not too sure about it..~.~

“ A robot would be destroyed to infinite density “

Okay,let me give u statement..

When we go deep under the sea,we will feel some pressure from the surface of the sea,right?When we go too deep,they would be many side effects such as our ears will be deaf because our eustachian tube cant hold on the pressure..

Some metals which are put inside a high density container will surely be crushed,

Give u an example,

try to boil a coke can with some hot water n try to put the can with some cold water,the aluminium would be crushed,

this is due to the atmospheric pressure which is 10^5(correct or not?)

When a robot enter's a black hole,the robot surely would be crushed with a very high density from the center of the black hole,(maybe the pressure is 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 or undefined)

So,it is possible to say that when an object enters a black hole,it will definitely dissappear or crushed..

(my thoughts though..sorry if they were some wrong statements..)>.<