Possibility of star formation around black holes

krash661 said:
q: what is the beginning process of a formation, is it gravity or static electricity ?
Click to expand...

Gravity, which would be why stars [begin to form\ elements come into existence] nearer than the electromagnetic radiation produced by a quasar. It goes gravity being step one, electromagnetic radiation which helps lower gravities impact on newly created stars, and finally static to completely bind the soup together before angular momentum is restored to an orderly fashion. Again I would just call this a simple initial speed, acceleration, and velocity problem. Gravity being speed, radiation being acceleration, and velocity resulting in the final addition of angular momentum.
 
If young stars formed in the vicinity of black holes, there would need to be a mechanism for eventually morphing that into disparate kinds of galaxies. I don't see any particular objection to this idea, but how did this process morph into over 22 pages of discussion? Looks like an apt analogy to me.
 
Beaconator said:
Gravity, which would be why stars [begin to form\ elements come into existence] nearer than the electromagnetic radiation produced by a quasar. It goes gravity being step one, electromagnetic radiation which helps lower gravities impact on newly created stars, and finally static to completely bind the soup together before angular momentum is restored to an orderly fashion. Again I would just call this a simple initial speed, acceleration, and velocity problem. Gravity being speed, radiation being acceleration, and velocity resulting in the final addition of angular momentum.
Click to expand...

incorrect.
it' starts out with static electricity.
static electricity brings together the gases and dust and such,
until it's able to clump up enough for gravity to take over.
 
danshawen said:
but how did this process morph into over 22 pages of discussion? Looks like an apt analogy to me.
Click to expand...

learning/understanding science is not really the intent at this place.
you will find 98% of topics here are nothing more than focused arguing, using science to do so.
 
krash661 said:
incorrect.
it' starts out with static electricity.
static electricity brings together the gases and dust and such,
until it's able to clump up enough for gravity to take over.
Click to expand...

Now this is really a cool idea. If we got close enough, or had detectors sensitive enough, might we actually be able to see electrical discharges or traces of them in nebulae? Or have we already? OK, I found a Springer Link to a 2004 paper about it. Cool.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
If young stars formed in the vicinity of black holes, there would need to be a mechanism for eventually morphing that into disparate kinds of galaxies. I don't see any particular objection to this idea, but how did this process morph into over 22 pages of discussion? Looks like an apt analogy to me.
Click to expand...

Some individuals seek pleasure in reducing the credibility of others without the use of logic. I believe the next stage in that development is a star going supernovae and repeating the process by expelling elements to the surrounding areas and transforming into a black hole, therefore becoming its own galaxy.
 
krash661 said:
incorrect.
it' starts out with static electricity.
static electricity brings together the gases and dust and such,
until it's able to clump up enough for gravity to take over.
Click to expand...

With preexisting materials sure, yet with creation (as if the Big bang or stars forming near a black hole), gravity is required to form the gasses and dust and such. A process which could be the close to the primary cause of expansion or thought of as a local reversal of entropy.
 
Beaconator said:
With preexisting materials sure, yet with creation (as if the Big bang or stars forming near a black hole), gravity is required to form the gasses and dust and such. A process which could be the close to the primary cause of expansion or thought of as a local reversal of entropy.
Click to expand...
again no,
this is incorrect.
 
krash661 said:
again no,
this is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Until an experiment is cited which reveals the creation of elements and or a star these 22 pages of discussion with a proposed experiment are the closest to the truth of our cosmic existence. Not only by my own words but by the words of others who post factual information here. Till then it is all just speculation.

The furthest I have been able to speculate is consciousness created the universe. The very act of thought renders so many scientific anomalies that we must consider the creation of matter in the universe and the act of thought might be connected at a singular point bearing a circular and repetitious evolution of consciousness bringing the universe closer to understanding itself.

The closest experiment to deciphering the answer to this question is to gather the elements listed upon the periodic table into a singular container of iron (to block minute aspects of fission/fusion and keep the experiment from going supernovae) and studying it as both a conscious entity and a tool of creation. It is both within the reach of our technology yet still the furthest reaches of our imagination without abstaining from excessive interpretation or reality.

Thank you all for your good thoughts.
 
Beaconator said:
Until an experiment is cited which reveals the creation of elements
Click to expand...

Later generations of stars [GEN2 and GEN3] or POP1 and POP2 stars are more metallic than GEN1 stars, and POP3.
Fusion is the only known process to explain the power of stars.
That is the evidence.
 
Fusion is only half the process of stars "transformation" of elements and does not explain the transformation of energy into matter found just before fission begins in a supernovae. As opposed to "creation" which has never been experimentally verified.

That said I could refuse to believe anything exists at all since there is no experiment to verify creation ever happened.
 
Beaconator said:
Fusion is only half the process of stars "transformation" of elements and does not explain the transformation of energy into matter found just before fission begins in a supernovae.
Click to expand...

There is a tremendous amount of information on the formation and lifetime of stars on the internet, you should try reading this material and stop making these horrible guesses!
 
origin said:
There is a tremendous amount of information on the formation and lifetime of stars on the internet, you should try reading this material and stop making these horrible guesses!
Click to expand...

That's not a guess... fusion forms all elements up to Iron. Supernovae explosions transform the rest.

If I were to guess I would say something other than fusion or fission allows a supernovae to form elements like titanium out of Iron.
 
scan0001.jpg
 
Nice picture. Now make the arrows point the opposite way and tell me how much hydrogen it takes to make the gamma rays disappear.

Is a black hole required for the fission process?
 
i posted that image to help your statement,
but it lead to another lack of comprehension.
sorry.
i tried.

it's like an elementary student attempting to do college studies without
knowing or understanding anything in between.
 
Since this is the Alternative theory thread section , aren't we assuming that black holes exist in the first place ?
 
river said:
Since this is the Alternative theory thread section , aren't we assuming that black holes exist in the first place ?
Click to expand...

there's observational evidence that clearly shows they do exist.
i'm not sure if this is still occurring,
but scientist were recently watching a gas cloud being rip apart and sucked into a black hole in the middle of our galaxy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top