I have always thought that a spiral Galaxy resembles nothing as closely as dirty water disapearing down a plug hole. The only differences being time and scale. Each interrelated. I was therefore very happy to hear it when X-ray Astronomers declared that every large Galaxy investigated to date contains a super massive 'star guzzling' Black Hole at its centre. I can feel the Milky Way gurgling down the infinite abyss of theoretical physics as I write. Other theories have been put forward but the evidence fits what I have long thought was obvious. If I'm right then Galaxies are just the accretion discs of these monsters. I think the Black Holes came first and everything else in the universe coalesced after the fact. Not vice versa or simultaneously.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: projectorion on 2002-11-17 09:14 ]</font>

Interesting. Where do you think the Black Holes came from? Where was the rest of everything else before that?

I don't know.

Everything has an equal and opposite effect. I think every Black Hole creates a White Hole but not in the same universe. Matter disapearing down a black hole first gets turned to sphaghetti by tidal disparity. Then it vanishes to destinations unknown. Parallel universes are now finally proven. I think Black Holes blink in and out of them. Not a blink to us. They live longer than universes. The Big Bang itself may have been a White Hole which will collapse back to an infinite point one day. In other words, this universe may be a part of a massive Black Hole. The laws of Physics break down at the macroscopic and nanoscopic levels because we are living within a singularity. Black Holes of that size break up on complete collapse. Into smaller Black Holes and a lot of energy. The universe.

Welcome to the board, BTW.
I'd like to review that proof.
That one too. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<a name="2-11-17.me"> page 2-11-17.me aka me
On 2002-11-17 10:48, GrapesOfWrath wrote: 2say
Welcome to the board, BTW./// HUb' Seconds the me NOTE
My thought along this line
WOULD BE.. if true then perhaps
Stars near the center would be older
stars near the edge would be younger
and the orbital period of the SUN {Sirius}
about the Galatic center would be decreasing
as the Sun gets {{{pulled}}} into the center
{and that may be far fewer turns than astronomers now SAY R

Accretion disks? Well, to a first approximation at least, fine. However, the biggest galaxies in the universe are ellipsoidal in shape. If it was really all accretion, then you'd expect the biggest galaxies to be flat pancakes.

Believe it or not, when I was taking an astronomy class about two years ago, I read an article about the proposition that the black holes were formed before the galaxies (or that galaxies formed around pre-existing black holes).

Argh - I thought I kept a copy of the article somewhere; I can't find it. Argh!

Oh, well. It was an interesting proposition and explanation for how it could have happened! I don't know what, if at all, more has been studied in regards to this. Sorry, but just to mention the proposition was out there.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Very happy? Something about the whole galaxy and everything in it plunging into oblivion makes me very UN-happy.

Well, except that the radius of influence of the supermassive black hole is very small. The vast majority of the galaxy doesn't even know it exists (at least not directly). To get the matter to "spiral down" into the "drain" (smbh), the matter has to lose a whole bunch of angular momentum (orbital energy), and when a whole bunch of mass is dumped at a rapid rate (solar masses per year), you get an active galaxy or quasar. There are a variety of mechanisms for doing this, but to my knowledge there isn't any agreement as to this mechanism(s).

It is possible that the smbh formed in the collapsed central mass concentration of the orginal dark matter halo, before much of the star formation during the early days of the galaxy's formation. One thing that is interesting is that the mass of the smbh somehow knows about mass of the spheroidal star distribution - and this would seem to corroborate the opening statement of this paragraph. There are lots of recent papers about this at the astro-ph preprint site:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/astro-ph/



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-18 22:32 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-22 11:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-22 11:52 ]</font>

I had hoped it wasn't a new theory nebularion.

Some interesting recent news. Hot off the presses.

A Galaxy with TWO Black Holes Discovered.

Tuesday, November 19, 2002



For the first time, scientists have proof two supermassive black holes exist together in the same galaxy, thanks to data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. These black holes are orbiting each other and will merge several hundred million years from now, to create an even larger black hole resulting in a catastrophic event that will unleash intense radiation and gravitational waves.

The Chandra image reveals that the nucleus of an extraordinarily bright galaxy, known as NGC 6240, contains not one, but two giant black holes, actively accreting material from their surroundings. This discovery shows that massive black holes can grow through mergers in the centers of galaxies, and that these enigmatic events will be detectable with future space-borne gravitational wave observatories.


GrapeofWrath.
Here's a links.

Parallel Universes.



BBC Two 9.00pm Thursday 14 February 2002


Everything you're about to read here seems impossible and insane, beyond science fiction. Yet it's all true.

Scientists now believe there may really be a parallel universe - in fact, there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes contain space, time and strange forms of exotic matter. Some of them may even contain you, in a slightly different form. Astonishingly, scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.

************************************************** ***************************************

As to the laws of Physics breaking down at the macroscopic (Black Hole Singularities) and nanoscopic (quantum physics basis), thats why relativity and Quantum physics are so difficult to corellate. The rest of that statement was my crazy theory.

Quote,
The laws of Physics break down at the macroscopic and nanoscopic levels because we are living within a singularity. Black Holes of that size break up on complete collapse. Into smaller Black Holes and a lot of energy. The universe.
End quote.

What happens when two blackholes collide? Its generally agreed upon that they will form a bigger Black Hole. Matter is matter however. They likely devour one another. So what happens when a smaller Black Hole is sucked through a larger one. I'm guessing, only guessing mind, that something as dense as a Black Hole can't be spaghettied by another Black Hole. It would travel through reasonably intact. It may even drag the bigger Black Hole through with it. That's if the combined mass is too great. Those two supermassive Black Holes circling one another perhaps.

Black holes aren't physical objects like you or me or neutrons or gluons or photons. They are sort of weird occassions in space time where light travels on closed paths and is therefore never visible to anyone outside of it. Thus there can be no "spaghetti" since there really is no "physical object" to "spaghetti". All you have is an arbitrary point in spacetime where you say, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". The details of the location of this border are handled by the "mass" of the black hole, but that is not "matter" in the sense you or I or Moscow or an electron is matter. In fact, there can be no measurement of the "tidal forces" on the black hole since you can't ever report to anyone on the outside what those forces acted like.

I know. And that's just the relativistic explanation. Try saying it in Quantum mechanics lingo if you really want to develop a headache. A spoonful of Neutronium from a Neutron star would sink straight down to the Earth's Uranium core if you dropped it. Assuming that much matter could possibly stay intact outside the restraining gravity of it's dead sun. Not a likely result. The stuff of Black Holes makes heavy Transuranic elements such as Plutonium look like vapour. Black Holes are marked on Interstellar maps with "Here Be Dragons". That link mentions support of a theory that Black Holes grow by devouring their surrounding Galaxies. Somebody asked me about how the orbital velocity of a Galactic Disc can be reduced enough for a Black Hole to devour everything. Well, actually they will probably increase in speed. They steal momentum from the central body (Black Hole). Just as our Planets have stolen much of the Suns angular momentum. As the Black Hole enlarges Space shortens. It's a race. Orbital velocity gradually increases as does the reach of the Black Hole. At the moment the disc is winning. The Galaxy is expanding. Expanding from its point of origin into empty intergalactic spaces. To be either gobbled up by other Black Holes eventually or to finally succumb to the Black Hole at its heart. Well, it's a theory.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...2bh.htm?friend
So what happen when a matter black hole hits an anti-matter black hole. Gamma ray burster.

Well, it's a wrong theory as was pointed out before. There is much more to galactic formation than accretion disks.

Another theory for GRBs is that when a large enough star to form a neutron star explodes, some of the jettisoned matter will fall back to the neutron star. This matter forms an accretion disk, and as it reaches the star, the hot gas and other junk ( [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ) is spun up to the axis of rotation and ejected at near light speed. When this matter reaches the primarilly ejected material in the initial explosion it interacts and forms a GRB. I think I got the gist of it, I don't remember the details. However the full story is on one of the threads here I think. Nitpicking is greatly appreciated, I want to get it right [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img].

It's probably a wrong theory but we don't have enough information to ascertain that for any certainty at this point in space and time. Black Holes only just left the realm of relativistic theory and science fiction. Hawking has theorised about them and then completely reversed his ideas later on. Differing degrees of tidal force acting on an object falling into a Black Hole cause it to stretch and disintegrate. The closer part of the falling object quite simply gets more gravitational tug than the the furthest part. This applies to all matter. What happens if its another Black Hole though? The Gravitational intensity of the second Black Hole rivals that of the first one. It counters the tidal effect of the other Black Hole with it's own collapsed core. If it stays intact it could travel through a wormhole intact. Perhaps logic shouldn't be applied to Black Holes.

Now I know my knowledge of black holes is rather small but isn't a black hole simply an insanely dense group of matter? Basicly, a burnt-out star or other object so large that its own gravity caused it to collapse in on itself (a lack of constantly exploding gas from your core can do that). Of course the mass of a sizeable star compacted into such a small area means that you can get much closer to its center of gravity than before, thereby giving the illusion of having much more gravity than the original star (the closer you are to the center of an object the more its gravity gets a hold of you, and now that you can actually GET to the center of gravity....).


Anyhow, that was the concept of black holes that I was taught. Is that wrong? And if its right, wouldn't a black hole sucking in a bunch of stars cause the black hole to consume enough volitile matter to eventually create fusion and re-ignite into a much bigger (but possibly weaker) star?

My idea of black holes was that the matter is compressed to a point beyond which physics can't describe. It's not just ultra-dense, like neutronium, or even the new strange quark matter, but is something that is indescribable in physical terms. That's why some people think a BH is actually a doorway to somewhere else, because it's left the universe itself, and only the gravitational effects remain.

Another thing to remember about BH's is that the event horizon is not really the black hole itself. It's simply the point at which the escape velocity becomes equal to c, and therefore nothing can escape the gravitational force. objects inside the event horizon may be torn into individual atoms by tidal forces, but they are still part of the universe itself. It isn't until something falls into the singularity itself that it ceases to be definable.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

In this case, I believe not. Not even if your concept was right. Fusion ignites in stars when the heat and pressure get high enough to fuse hydrogen. At this point the outward pressure of the fusion process acts to hold back the contraction of gravity. In a star, the two forces eventually reach a balancing point keeping it both from collapsing and from expanding away into nothingness. But eventually the hydrogen fuel for fusion gets used up. The fusion process dies out, causing the star to contract again. Soon it gets hot enough to start fusing helium instead. The process repeats. Then it continues up the ladder of elements until it gets to lead. Unfortunately though, lead is too stable an element to undergo fusion. In fact, I believe all elements higher than lead are unable to fuse. So at that point the star dies for good.

As for ultra-dense matter such as your BH concept however, It can't fuse at all. It has already collapsed far beyond the level where fusion can occur. In fact, it's collapsed so far that there even the atomic elements needed for fusion don't exist anymore. There's nothing more than a soup of subatomic particles left, unable to react in any way capable of creating an outward pressure.

Adding more matter to this mess does not help it either. All that does is add more mass to the body, increasing the gravity still further. The new matter just gets shredded to subatomic particles too and gets added to the mix.

Note, that I'm really thinking more of neutron stars here. As I mentioned in my last post, the gravity of a black hole is generally thought to have collapsed this matter even further, so that not even subatomic particles can exist.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

The Schwarzchild radius where singularities begin is unobservable and quantum mechanics seems to imply that anything observed is influenced. Any space that cannot be observed or influenced except by entering it may not be a part of this universe at all. Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if nobody is around to hear it? According to quantum mechanics it doesn't. The same applies to Black Holes. They interact with our universe by gravity but gravity itself is now thought to be a force from outside our universe. If Black Holes are not part of our universe then they must be in another universe. Perhaps all that we detect is the door to that universe. The Big Bang could have been a White Hole created when an extremely large Black Hole first collapsed. The Big Crunch of a closed universe. Universes may even collide and merge into large Black Holes.