Possibility of star formation around black holes

Again, why not stop hedging and beating round the bush?
What are you saying?
AND YES YOU DO NEED A REFERENCE.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You need a reference so we know, for sure, it's not you spewing nonsense. You making up bullshit and posting it in a science forum isn't a reliable reference. I already know you're full of crap. I want you to realize it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is certainly true, but don't be getting all antsy on me.

If a black hole is "entangled" with its galaxy and the resulting energy input effects both, then star and chemical formation is more a byproduct of a black hole than it is the de facto star fusion chemical process. Without the black hole evaporating or matter squeezing out energy just before it vanishes the star would not have enough energy to begin fusion and instead evaporate just like a micro black hole is thought to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure if it is a language issue or not - but this makes no sense at all.

 

I'm sure you've seen this BBC program about the Nuker team and the discovery of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. This is a transcript:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/massivebholes_transcript.shtml

This is very important research. The correlations derived between the supermassive black hole, at the center, and the rest of the galaxy is what science is all about. Really cool. They discuss the history of the research in the transcript of the show. But here at the forum we're still trying to convince 'some folks' that black holes actually exist and are not just the 'figment' of some coordinate choice. Really good science.

 

It's not certainly true. It's bullshit you're making up. That's why I asked for a reference since you say it's CERTAINLY TRUE. The only thing certain about it is it's bullshit.

 

The part which is certainly true is that I have some isolated thoughts and am hedging my bets somewhat. That and I am trying to convey something. That is certain. If you cant even read into a simple conversation correctly how am I supposed to know you are capable of following anything at all.

Paddoboy and I are trying to have a conversation here, one in which we have both tested eachother with some aspect of respect. The only thing I can gather about you bruce is that you would be the type when your wife comes in and asks a question you immediately become defensive. Instead of spending an extra couple seconds in thought you believe the quickest blurb out of your mouth shows your superiority and intelligence when it just masks a poor defense to begin with.

 

Who's getting all antsy?
You post a confused, potpouri of seemingly rubbish, that no one including the professionals we have here can understand, so I'm asking what you mean?
If you have an alternative theory of galactic/stellar/BH formation, then you are in the wrong section.
I'm only a layman, but your post above appears to me to be unmitigated gobbldydook.
Why do you raise BH evaporation [Hawking Radiation] which takes place over trillions of years, and compare it with nonsensical, "matter suqeezing out energy"
Do you understand the process of Hawking radiation?
It's to do with the physical law of the conservation of energy.......nothing in actual fact, steps across the EH.
The EH equates to the Universal speed limit "c".....Nothing will exceed or even match that, except space/time itself.

Now again, please show some reputable scientific reference re whatever it is you are claiming.

 

I'm not capable of following? Really? Where's the reference? I don't make up bullshit. It's not part of my intellectual philosophy.

You want to have a conversation then say this is something I thought about rather than claim it's true. True has a specific meaning in science. It means that a consensus has been reached by the scientific community between a theoretical prediction and empirical tests of the prediction.

 

OK, the time for hedging is over.
I did give up there a bit, a brief rundown into why the universe is the way it is.
Do you acknowledge that as correct?
I summed up how some SMBH's called Quasars are the way they are, and then why the Milky way is the way it is.....
All this aligns reasonably well with present day accepted cosmological knowledge.
If you see it differently, and have another theory, then you are in the wrong section.

And quickly as I must be off again, Do you happen to think that Astronomers/Cosmologists, pull these stories out of their arses?
They have years and years of intricate measurements, data and observations from probes such as COBE, WMAP, the HST, Planck, Spitzer, and ground based telescopes.
What instrumentalities do you have available?

 

Beaconator.....I probably like you, am a layman.....I also after 20 years of reading reputable books by reputable authors, have formulated my own model.
I believe the BB maybe the arse end of a BH, or a white hole if you like.....I also theorise that BH singularities are not infinite, but could well pass via a wormhole and ERB to another out pouring of space/time and another Universe.
But that's just my personal probability model.
I know there is no evidence to support it...
I know that cosmologists have never yet seen a WH...
I also know that we have never seen a wormhole either....
I also realize that cosmologists/Astronomers are working at the cutting edge of possibly the greatest discipline that we can Imagine, and could reveal probable answers to questions mankind has been asking since we climbed down out of the trees.

Consequently, it is then not too hard for me to understand why some professional people, may get a bit touchy and cranky, when in forums such as this, they are beset every day, with anti mainstream nutters, "would be if they could be's " that have done some preliminary course in cosmology, and then think they can rewrite 20th century observations.
And than of course we have the real loony conspiracy pushers.

There is a lot they don't know as yet, but that just drives most of those at the cutting edge even more....
By the same token, the 20th century has proved to be an expotential growth in the astronomy/cosmological sciences, with the evidence that shapes what we know.

 

Your no layman. The interpretations I have heard from you are simple, easy to follow, and very closely match any good reference. But perhaps you are confused or my interpretations lead you to believe I think something I don't.

I don't. I compare it to the death cry of matter falling in.

Mostly. That means in or out and hawking radiation was theorized to solve this quandary.

Also familiar.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/01/black-holes-of-the-universe-growing-faster-than-previously-thought.html

The information here submits some of the things you have been saying about the milky way compared to other galaxies, where the black hole is smaller than the surrounding galaxy and more distant. It also says galaxies closer to the hole have less mass than the hole itself and grow more rapidly.

And the more detailed.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/01/black-holes-of-the-universe-growing-faster-than-previously-thought.html

Action at a distance has been measured at a fairly large distance considering smaller mass and is the only way to reconcile growth between a galaxy and a black hole between the the event horizon. Particles inside the event horizon could be paired with those outside via particles resting at the horizon. Anhilation between the in and out forces the particle resting at to disperse its energy in both directions (eg. evaporation).

 

Oh yes I bloody well am. I am a retired Maintenance Fitter and Machinist by trade, with a great Interest in Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics.
If I am confused it's because you do not appear to be using regular terminology in part.
The other part just appears to be wrong.

And the more detailed.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/01/black-holes-of-the-universe-growing-faster-than-previously-thought.html


The article appears to be discussing the observation, that SMBH's are growing faster then thought, and taking a greater share of the nebula within galaxies than once thought.
That's science, pure and simple...that is being modified in line with new observations.

You seem to be confusing normal BH feeding on matter with Hawking Radiation.
Stellar matter will be formed into an accretion disk generally, spiralling into the BH, and gaining speed as it does, to near "c" and is heated up, so giving off EMR at various wavelengths.

Hawking radiation occurs when a virtual particle pair pop into existence just at the perimeter [EH] of the BH.....[1] They can both escape and annihilate, [2] they can both secumb to the BH, and that's that, or [3] one may escape, and one gets sucked in.
With the third, the particle that escapes has nothing to annihilate with and becomes real, and the one that gets sucked in being negative, takes away from the BH's mass conserving the law of conservation of mass and energy.

 

Antimatter is observed to surround a black hole in a high density. Matter antimatter collisions are known as annihilation. The result is known to create more energy than hydrogen bombs. The universe is thought to be the product of reactions containing both matter and antimatter. We could consider the event horizon to contain both. Therefore we could consider ourselves to look like a black hole from the inside of a black hole. Therefore combining equal amounts of known elements would create a black hole. The antimatter attracted to such a mass would create a sustainable fusion star around it. Something humanity is yet to accomplish. That is that.

 

Lucky you only have me at present to tell you that what you say above is a whole lot of gobblydook and bunkum...
brucep and Grumpy would use much stronger language I expect.


Whatever anti matter exists in the Universe, is in very very small amounts, for the reason that you stated.....ANNIHILATION!
The anti matter and matter that existed after the BB did just that...ANNHILATED each other.....but for some unknown reason, there must have been a slight excess of normal matter.

 

Interesting. I was exchanging correspondence with Sandra Faber about cosmology two decades earlier, circa 1980, when I was writing to her about the CMB, etc.

 

This is a recent discussion on Baryon Number Violation and proposals for experiments to possibly detect proton decay. Just reading the 'introduction' and 'conclusion' sections gives some history and information. BTW the paper on 'Superhabital Worlds' is really informative. Interstellar travel 'gets a mention' for conducting the research. Yeah!
Baryon Number Violation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5285

Meant to add this discussion from the CERN site.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/antimatter.html

 

Thanks brucep...

 

Or matter and antimatter could exist equally on the opposite side of an event horizon. With half the mass in the universe being an unknown substance I would damn the person who suggested an unequal beginning rising from two equalities. That tangent has possibly been the greatest downfall in science in recent years.

Cp violations leading to more matter than antimatter is almost laughable when an object consuming time is thought to have created time. The presence of matter surrounding a collision would effect the outcome the same in an environment of antimatter.

If the universe started as a fluctuation at the event horizon creating two bursts of gamma rays one of antimatter the other as matter propagation in the direction of the source after two seconds of each traveling in opposite directions would allow annihilation to create a greater fluctuation at the source and pairity between two sources of energy 600,000 kilometers away. Still if one perspective believed the other didn't move of course the T symmetry would be violated.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5285


https://www.exploratorium.edu/origin...ntimatter.html


You seem to be in a world of your own making beaconator.