Galaxy mergers not the trigger for most black hole feeding frenzies

Oct 14, 2011
A survey of distant galaxies found that disk galaxies like those pictured above are just as likely to host active galactic nuclei as galaxies involved in disruptive mergers, like those in the images below. Credit: A. Koekemoer (Space Telescope Science Institute), NASA, ESA.

(PhysOrg.com) -- A survey of distant galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope has put another nail in the coffin of the theory that galaxy mergers are the main trigger for turning quiescent supermassive black holes into radiation-blasting active galactic nuclei.

Led by astronomers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the new study examined the morphology and structure of distant galaxies hosting active central black holes. The researchers found that these galaxies were no more likely to be involved in an ongoing merger than non-active galaxies of similar mass.

"Theoretical models show that a merger is a great way to trigger an active , because it funnels a lot of gas to the center of the galaxy. But we found that most of the did not look disturbed. They look like disk galaxies, and a disk would be destroyed by a merger," said Dale Kocevski, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Santa Cruz and first author of a paper on the findings to be published in the .

Galaxy mergers not the trigger for most black hole feeding frenzies

A (millions or even billions of times the mass of the sun) sits at the core of most if not all large galaxies. But only a fraction of these are the bright radiation sources known as , which light up when the central black hole is actively gobbling up nearby . The galactic center glows brightly at all wavelengths because the gas heats up as it falls into the black hole and emits .

"The problem has been how to get the gas into the center of the galaxy, rather than orbiting around in the disk," said coauthor Sandra Faber, University Professor of at UC Santa Cruz.

The study used new images from Hubble's WFC3 infrared camera taken as part of the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS). Faber, who leads the CANDELS project, said the images include galaxies at distances of nearly 11 billion light years. Looking deep into space gives astronomers a window back in time, revealing earlier stages in the evolution of the universe. This study covered a period when the brightest active galaxies, known as quasars, were at their peak, and theoretical models predicted that galaxy collisions would be an important trigger, Faber said. "Theory says that collisions should be more important, but we did not find that," she said.

These are not the first findings to suggest that violent galactic mergers are not needed to fuel active black holes. Earlier imaging studies of galaxies at distances of up to 8 billion light years had also failed to find evidence that mergers were triggering most active galactic nuclei. More recently a team of astronomers reached the same conclusions based on an analysis of the distribution of active galaxies out to almost 11 billion light years. But only Hubble's WFC3 could provide images showing the morphologies of galaxies at that distance.

"We were surprised to see that they look a lot like galaxies much closer to us," Faber said.

If galaxy collisions are not responsible for triggering active galactic nuclei, it suggests less violent processes within galaxies may play a greater role in feeding black holes, Kocevski said. "We call these secular processes. They happen randomly about ten percent of the time and are common in the local universe, such as when a star or a giant gas cloud gets too close and falls into the black hole."

Alternatively, the black holes may be fueled by a process that is unique to the early universe. "Recent theories suggest distant galaxies are fed by streams of cold gas, which can lead to violent instabilities in disk galaxies that result in large amounts of gas being funneled to the central black hole," Kocevski said. "Only with further study will we know for sure."

Explore further: When did galaxies settle down?

Related Stories

Small distant galaxies host supermassive black holes

Sep 15, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using the Hubble Space Telescope to probe the distant universe, astronomers have found supermassive black holes growing in surprisingly small galaxies. The findings suggest that central black ...

What activates a supermassive black hole?

Jul 13, 2011

A new study combining data from ESO's Very Large Telescope and ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray space observatory has turned up a surprise. Most of the huge black holes in the centres of galaxies in the past 11 billion ...

Rain of giant gas clouds create active galactic nuclei

Jul 08, 2010

Galaxies like our own were built billions of years ago from a deluge of giant clouds of gas, some of which continue to rain down. Now new calculations tie the rain of giant clouds of gas to active galactic nuclei (AGN), the ...

How do supermassive black holes get so big?

Apr 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- At the center of most galaxies lie supermassive black holes that can grow to become more than a billion times larger than our Sun. However, astrophysicists don’t fully understand the formation ...

Active galaxies are different near and far

Jan 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- An ongoing X-ray survey undertaken by NASA's Swift spacecraft is revealing differences between nearby active galaxies and those located about halfway across the universe. Understanding these ...

Recommended for you

When did galaxies settle down?

4 hours ago

Astronomers have long sought to understand exactly how the universe evolved from its earliest history to the cosmos we see around us in the present day. In particular, the way that galaxies form and develop ...

Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

5 hours ago

This neat little galaxy is known as NGC 4526. Its dark lanes of dust and bright diffuse glow make the galaxy appear to hang like a halo in the emptiness of space in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space ...

Planet-forming lifeline discovered in a binary star system

Oct 29, 2014

Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have detected a streamer of dust and gas flowing from a massive outer disk toward the inner reaches of a binary star system. This never-before-seen ...

Astronomy & Astrophysics: Planck 2013 results

Oct 29, 2014

Astronomy & Astrophysics is publishing a special feature of 31 articles describing the data gathered by Planck over 15 months of observations and released by ESA and the Planck Collaboration in March 2013. ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TimESimmons
1 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2011
Doh! Disk galaxies ARE galaxy mergers in progress.

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2011
The problem has been how to get the gas into the center of the galaxy, rather than orbiting around in the disk.


That is actually very easy, as I mentioned yesterday, at least up until around 1000 to 10,000 solar masses, as over cosmic time scales, this is about how much material should be added to a "seed" black hole in the center, through entire generations of Stars throughout the galaxy having done a Supernova.

The mass of the Milky Way is currently given as 700 billion solar masses.

I find that if you pick a point not close to any star or "local" massive object, but 50,000ly distance from the center of the Milky Way, the "escape velocity" from the galaxy at that point is 629km/s.

whenever a supernova happens, almost half of the mass of the shell is ejected inwards, towards the core, while slightly more than half is ejected outward (think of a plane tangent to a sphere, for simplicity.)
Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2011
Now here's the thing.

Obviously, when a supernova happens, any expanding gas which eventually has a head-on collision with other massive objects (stars, planets, brown dwarfs, black holes) as captured and does not escape the galaxy. This should be true in most cases, even for clouds expanding much faster than 629m/s, since it would "hit" the much more massive object, i.e. star, and be capture. It may slightly disrupt the object it hits, but the relative mass is so high it probably won't knock it to much.

Anyway, if you can imagine these shells falling down, particularly into the dense hubs on the galaxies where there are more stars to be hit, and denser gravity wells, the material will get caught.

After a couple generations of stars, the gas falls down into the black hole.

So what they should do is in a computer model, they should model an entire generation or two worth of about 200 billion stars exploding in supernovas, and watch where the gas goes over cosmic time scale
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2011
Yeah, I realize most people can't visualize that in their head, so you automatically give me negative feedback.

Go figure.

I can give you a simple geometric representation of how this works, so maybe you can fathom it.

I can do the 3d in my head, but I'll give you a 2d example.

But the 3d calculation suggests that even for an object at 50k ly distance, if it explodes, then even if you ignore gravity, at least 1/3rd of 1 percent of the mass of the shell should eventually end up in the Hub of the galaxy. Stars closer to the center would actually deposit a higher percentage in the hub after exploding.

An easy way to see this is draw two concentric circles.

One represents the hub at 3000ly radius.

the outer one represents the maximum galactic radius, at 50k ly.

Now draw a circle centered on thed edge of the larger circle and the same size as the larger circle. This represents cross-section of expanding cloud from supernova.
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2011
Now look at the size of the sector which is intersecting the small circle (which represents the dense hub). If you realize, all material ejected from the star that explodes moves out through the sphere that the cross section represents, and in 3d anyway, 1/3rd of a percent HIT the surface of the cross section of the little circle.

In a super nova you might have a 10M star.

Say it ejects 3M worth of mass. If 1/3rd of a percent "eventually" hits the sector represented by the intersection of the small circle, which it should because there's no reason it wouldn't over several million years, then that means you end up with 1 hundredth of a solar mass EXTRA inside the hub.

Now, doesn't look like much, but if you had 200 billion super novas and each deposited at least a hundredth of a solar mass, then guess what? That's 1 billion solar masses "added" to the hub.

Now if say, 1000th of the mass in the hub ends up in the SMBH, you have a million mass SMBH....
AngryMoose
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2011
You know you've got a lot to say when your post is longer than the article.
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2011
Now, when you add gravity, you're more liekly to capture more of this mass, because it's going to "skew" the expanding sphere(s) from any supernovas into hyperbolic trajectories in the direction of center fo gravity, rather than just a "straight line" projection. Meaning slightly more than 1/3rd of a percent of the expanding shell from 50k ly supernova would actually get trapped.

If you want to how much for supernova of star at say, 25k ly, well that is geometrically easy, because surface of sphere of 25k ly is 1/4th that of sphere of 50k ly, therefore for explosion half the distance, the percentage of material which would intersect the cross section is quadrupled (which turns out to be the same as Newton's inverse square law, I'm just deriving and showing that it's the same for ejecta of physical matter.)

And so, for 25k ly distance from center, it turns out that just over 1.2 percent of the mass of the shell would get trapped in the core. For 3M that would be 0.036m per 3m shel
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2011
You know you've got a lot to say when your post is longer than the article.


If you're going to explain a way to do something that big it takes a bit of writing.

Most of the articles on this site suck, and don't give any detail, and are pretty much useless.

Unfortunately, most of the writers and readers lack basic visualization skills as well.
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2011
Hey guess what guys?

You can negative me if you like, but then try the damn calculation yourself and you'll find I'm right.

Only don't go writing any papers.

Contrary to Rpenner's claims, information posted on a public forum still belongs to the author.

Well, almost all the stars in the galaxy are 2nd generation, meaning the 1st generation stars exploded already.

I gave the visual and geometric basis for describing what happens when hundreds of billions of 1st generation stars explode over a period of several millions to billions of years.

If the matter moves at typical supernova expansion velocities of 1500km/s, then it could move from the farthest edge of the galaxy to the SMBH in 10 billion years, which leaves more than enough time for it to have happened in the galaxy's history, since that's the longest case scenario. And from half way out, there is time for second generation explosion's matter to have fallen to the black hole... it works in both space and time.
Pyle
4.9 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2011
QC, please develop your theories and post them somewhere else. There are plenty of free blogs you can throw it up on. Then you can link to it here, rather than burying the board here in your endless rants. Your posts are not appropriate for this forum.

Beyond the inappropriateness, you are spouting on about something you haven't properly researched and have only basic knowledge. Do you even know if this is a novel idea?

We applaud you for your use of math, but please take it somewhere else and link to it. Don't bury us here with it.

Heck, I will even promise to visit your blog if you stop polluting Physorg with your multi post novellas. Brevity, after all, is the soul of wit.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2011
"Theory says that collisions should be more important, but we did not find that,"

"We were surprised to see that they look a lot like galaxies much closer to us,"

No surprise. Just more support for the inside-out growth cosmology of LaViolette. He predicts the galactic core active state is around 10 percent, as observed here. We are due for our own core to go active soon. Last major cosmic ray superwave to pass Earth corresponds to last ice age. It is now illuminating the Crab nebula.

http://www.physor...ace.html

http://www.physor...rly.html

http://www.physor...307.html

http://www.physor...ies.html
bewertow
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
So some random casual math dude thinks he's smarter than scientists with PhD's and years of research experience. Ya, you know you're arrogant when...
jsdarkdestruction
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2011
this doesnt support laviolette. neither did any of those other articles, we've shown you have no actual knowledge and just follow your idol plenty of times, hell, youve even admitted it.
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2011
nano - I suspect that the model you have outlined is how much of the gas inflows to the galactic center, but conservation of momentum unfortunately means almost all of it will continue to orbit, even if it become close to the core.

Further, your model fails to answer the central question of the article. Why are only about 10% of the galactic nuclei 'active'? Why are the rest of the 90% absorbing gas/stars, etc. so quietly? The gas has to get within a tiny faction of a light year to the black hole to be spun up enough to release the observed energy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2011
So some random casual math dude thinks he's smarter than scientists with PhD's and years of research experience. Ya, you know you're arrogant when...
Naw he's just insane. Obviously. And 60 or more posts of this drivel daily, day after day after day...
Contrary to Rpenner's claims, information posted on a public forum still belongs to the author.
-Case in point; he believes this is publishable.
Ahaaahahaha!

He'll be banned as usual but he'll be back. This is the problem with compulsive neurotics. Or perhaps he will hit bottom and decide to seek help where he knows he can find it, rather than exposing himself here.

Hey QC! Good news! The world really IS against you, for obvious reasons, so you're not completely delusional after all.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2011
@Nanobanano,
Aside from angular momentum conservation SemiNerd mentioned, your hypothesis suffers from additional problems. First, SN debris doesn't expand in a vacuum. It quickly rams into the interstellar medium (not to mention giant molecular clouds and dust clouds), and eventually stops propagating through the galaxy, having transferred its energy to the ISM in the form of heat. Second, the large and dense concentrations of stars near the galactic core actually exert significant outward pressure on any in-falling material, via both direct photonic pressure and stellar winds. Extremely active "starburst" galaxies eventually go quiescent, and the theory (backed up by some observations) is this happens because they literally heat and blow all the putative star-forming matter clean out of the galaxy. Third, there have not been hundreds of billions of supernovae in any galaxy we know of, much less any that's 11 billion light years distant.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2011
Thank you, Dr. Dale Kocevski, for ranking observations over theoretical models.

Over fifty years ago President Dwight D. Eisenhower solemnly warned of the danger to our society if a "scientific-technological elite" ever took control [Farewell address (17 Jan 1961)]

Document: http://mcadams.po.../ike.htm
Video: www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Last week an editorial in Nature confirmed the danger of using consensus models as scientific facts [Nature 5, 7 (5 Oct 2011)].

www.nature.com/ne...07a.html

Forty years (1971-2001) of model-driven consensus have damaged:

a.) The vitality of government science,
b.) The integrity of government science, and even
c.) The fragile self-governance we inherited in 1776!

http://judithcurr...scholar/

http://judithcurr...t-121893

Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
Yeah, I realize most people can't visualize that in their head, so you automatically give me negative feedback.

Go figure.

I can give you a simple geometric representation of how this works, so maybe you can fathom it.
Frankly, your idea is not that hard to grasp, nor is it a brilliant masterpiece to which everyone wants to lay claim. People neg bomb you because you are often arrogantly dismissive of the researcher's effort and/or intellect by claiming that you thought along the same lines, or by presenting your own theory consisting of gross over-simplifications that reveal the limited depth of your knowledge. Your posts can't even stand up to basic scrutiny in this limited environment. You may be the big intellectual fish in your very little pond, but you are little more than a small morsel in the ocean. Get over yourself.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2011
Oliver you have made it quite clear that you think there is something you call neutron repulsion and it stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2011
The foundation for the AGW scam - the Bilderberg model of the Sun as a constant heat source - was poured at the Bilderberg Hotel on April 17-21, 1967.

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

http://en.wikiped...rg_Group

That is the source of many problems in science - especially astronomy, climatology and solar physics -today.

Oliver K. Manuel
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
This is not a global warming article nor did you answer, spammer.

According to you Neutron repulsion stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.

If it has the range to fragment galaxies and the strength and range to block the formation of ANY black holes then it not only is strong enough to stop the formation of neutron stars but also ANYTHING that is held together by gravity.

For NR to stop the formation of Black Holes and cause the fragmentation of galaxies then it is stronger than gravity at both the range of a dozen kilometers and at kiloparsecs. This means that not only does it shatter galaxies but they could not form in first place. Planets could not form and ALL gravity bound objects would be sundered by this hypothetical galaxy busting Black Hole blocking force.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
The foundation for the AGW scam - the Bilderberg model of the Sun as a constant heat source - was poured at the Bilderberg Hotel on April 17-21, 1967.

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

That is the source of many problems in science - especially astronomy, climatology and solar physics -today.

Oliver K. Manuel

oliver, you have absolutely no right to talk about reality, you left that behind you a long time ago, along with your honor and dignity and integrity. your lies are sickening and no one here believes in your nonsense except you and kio. youve got no training in any of the fields you claim are wrong and experts have shown you are wrong repeatdley. Get real, its sad how low youve fallen. no, pathetic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
According to you Neutron repulsion stops the formation of Black Holes. If Black Holes are stopped by NR then Neutron stars couldn't exist either. Of course there are all those claims that NR is causing galaxies to fragment and you spammed the site with that dozens of times.
Yeah it is odd that he refuses to address your reasonable objections. It's like he's admitting his theory is a scam without even trying to defend it. I suppose he's just peddling his book because he needs the income?

Unless he would at least attempt to support his theory in the public forum -?

The ONLY question which occurs to me is that, in the original proto-solar system whirlpool, why wouldn't the heavier elements gravitate toward the center? If this is the explanation for why we find rocky planets inward and gas giants and the Oort cloud farther out, then why wouldn't we expect the sun to contain lots of iron and very little hydrogen? I'm sure scientists have already figured this all out.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
why wouldn't we expect the sun to contain lots of iron and very little hydrogen?
Because the Sun represents more than 99% of the solar system's total mass. Yes, most of the solar system's heavy elements will have ended up in the Sun. Just as most of the solar system's light elements ended up in the Sun.

The cloud of matter that collapsed to form the solar system was not composed of "lots of iron and very little hydrogen". No such clouds exist in the known universe; the universe is not nearly old enough yet to have transmuted most of its hydrogen into iron.

The primordial cloud that gave rise to the solar system was very slightly enriched in 'metals', but hydrogen was still by far, overwhelmingly, its main component.
why wouldn't the heavier elements gravitate toward the center
They would, but more importantly, they're not as volatile, and not as easily blown away by radiation and solar winds. Where light elements evaporate away, heavier elements clump and remain.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Yeah but why wouldn't most all of the iron be in the sun? In the primordial cloud, wouldn't gravitation have drawn it into the center where it would remain when the sun ignited? Was this cloud only partially stratified?

It seems there must have been a zone of heavier elements with a mostly hydrogen and helium center, for the sun to be composed mostly of these light elements. Unless the cloud didn't have enough time to fully differentiate.

Why does Ollie think there was enough iron in the protocloud to form an iron solar core? No I don't want to visit his links.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
Yeah but why wouldn't most all of the iron be in the sun?
Who said it wouldn't be? Yes, it would be expected to be in the Sun, along with the other 99% of the primordial cloud's contents.

But why fixate on iron? There is much more oxygen, and nitrogen, and carbon, and all the other lighter 'metals' in the Sun, than there is of iron. And yet ALL of them are mere trace elements compared to the sheer quantities of hydrogen in the Sun. Even the helium content in the Sun absolutely dwarfs all the other heavier elements put together.
Why does Ollie think there was enough iron in the protocloud to form an iron solar core?
Because Ollie doesn't believe in the protocloud. Ollie thinks the Sun is a solid chunk of neutronium, burping out hydrogen as well as all the other elements via "neutron repulsion". Never mind that this is blatantly impossible. Ollie wouldn't know basic, high-school-level physics, to save his poor deluded life.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
in olivers theory he switches between an iron sun and a neutron star sun whenever convient actually. his theory is still garbage, no actually, its total crap, worse than garbage. just like he himself is.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Try reading the papers and addressing the experimental data and observations:

"Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and
the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

"Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the
Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis",
Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

www.nature.com/na...5a0.html

"Noble gas anomalies and synthesis of the chemical
elements", Meteoritics 15, 117-138 (1980)

www.omatumr.com/a...lies.pdf

"Solar abundances of the elements",
Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion",
MPS 33, A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

"Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

O. Manuel

http://myprofile....anuelo09

jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2011
we've all read your papers, they are garbage. you cant answer any questions and just spam the same nonsense the question was on. stop pretending you are a man of science, you are not. you are a man of ignorance who cant accept the truth that he is a disgrace to the profession and morally has nowhere to stand on.
stellar-demolitionist
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
The foundation for the AGW scam - the Bilderberg model of the Sun as a constant heat source - was poured at the Bilderberg Hotel on April 17-21, 1967.

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

Oliver K. Manuel


Good grief, Mr. Manuel! I thought the "Bilderberg Model" of the Sun was a figment of you imagination, but it turns out it is another piece of astrophysics that you either don't understand, misconstrue, or deliberately choose misuse and obfuscate.

A quick perusal of this paper reveals that it is an emperical model of the thermal structure of the solar photosphere and chromosphere regions, constructed by inverting the solar spectrum. The model was given its name by the group of scientists meeting at the same Dutch hotel that gave the well known group of powerful politicians and businessmen its name. They are not related.

The model does not address the core, or energy source, and speaks only to the visible H-rich atmosphere, which even you do not dispute.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
in olivers theory he switches between an iron sun and a neutron star sun whenever convient actually. his theory is still garbage, no actually, its total crap, worse than garbage. just like he himself is.


See: This quick sketch of what we know (and do not know)
about the internal structure of the Sun from measurements:

http://dl.dropbox...ture.pdf
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
I thought the "Bilderberg Model" of the Sun was a figment of you imagination, but . . .

The model was given its name by the group of scientists meeting at the same Dutch hotel [BILDERBERG] that gave the well known group of powerful politicians and businessmen its name. They are not related.


1. A remarkable coincidence: Powerful politicians and solar scientists meet at the Bilderberg?

2. Another coincidence: AGW is a mix of politics and science like "science" from "1984"?

www.online-litera...ll/1984/

3. AGW assumes constant heat input from the Sun.

4. Heat pours from the visible outer solar layers (chromosphere/photosphere) that - by international Bilderberg consensus - is homogeneous, in equilibrium, with H/He =10.

5. AGW has no more validity than the Bilderberg Sun. The politics/science ratio in both stories is about equal to the H/He ratio at the top of the Sun's atmosphere.

See sketch here:

http://dl.dropbox...ture.pdf
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2011
The sad mix of politics and science in AGW is discussed in more detail here:

http://judithcurr...t-121893
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
1. It is a coincidence, you sexually assaulted your children at the university(why you were banned from going there ever again)(well, at least 1 of your children, according to what your children told the police), that doesnt mean everyone there is a child molester like you.
2. Nonsense, pure bullshit. you have no training in this field
3. More nonsense, again you have no training in any of the fields you claim are wrong. ANY!
4. You have no training in the field and have been proven wrong over and over again.
5. More nonsense conspiracy theories.
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2011


1. A remarkable coincidence: Powerful politicians and solar scientists meet at the Bilderberg?



Yes, a coincidence.

The AAS has met at the same hotel in Chicago where the 1968 Democratic convention was held and the same hotel in Washington where Reagan was shot. Are those also coincidences or something more sinister?

According their own web site (link through the wikipedia page)
The Bilderbergers have never met at the same hotel in the Netherlands which gave them their name.

You, of course, are free to not believe them as you wish.

I personally find the notion of all of those powerful people meeting in secret a bit disconcerting, but please don't insinuate that we astrophysicists are in on some global conspiracy. (If we are they forgot to tell me.)
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
please don't insinuate that we astrophysicists are in on some global conspiracy. (If we are they forgot to tell me.)


How do YOU explain hiding or ignoring experimental data that falsified the Bilderberg solar model? Data from:

1. The Apollo Mission to the Moon?

"Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

2. Meteorite analysis?

"Isotopes of Te, Xe & Kr in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

www.nature.com/na...5a0.html

3. The Galileo Probe of Jupiter?

"Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", MPS 33-A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

4. Nuclear Rest Mass and Cross-section Data?

"Neutron Repulsion", APEIRON J, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Solar composition from n-capture cross sections", 36th LPSC 1033 (2005)

http://arxiv.org/...412502v1
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
your data has been refuted again and again oliver, just accept the reality you are wrong and your life has been a waste.
MarkyMark
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2011
Oliver should just have his account deleted just for being a paedofile. Oh and he spams interlectuall dribble.
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011


How do YOU explain hiding or ignoring experimental data that falsified the Bilderberg solar model? Data from:

1.-4. (5.)


I will deal with the "Bilderberg" model separately, but first your "data":

Only the Nature paper (#2) seems to be about actual measurements of isotopic abundances. (I can't read that here.) I am not familiar with the literature on isotopic abundances, solid/gas chemistry, etc., so I cannot comment on the abundance data, but your interpretation flies in the face of many other well demonstrated pieces of nuclear and astrophysics.

In references 1, 3, and (5) you spend a great deal of time extrapolating the fractionation between the observed photospheric and solar wind abundances to deeper layers of the Sun. This is not warranted. Above the photosphere, the density becomes low and the mean free path between atomic collisions increases dramatically. Differing radiation pressure effects and other fractioning effects can come into play there.

continued...
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
...continued

The granules visible in the Solar surface are the tops of convection cells that keep the Sun well mixed below the photosphere and thus the photospheric composition is the same as the composition fairly deep into the Sun. The existence of the outer convective layer (and its uniform composition) is well established by helioseismology.

If convection didn't mix things well we would have problems here on Earth with the gravitational settling of heavy molecules like Ar (36 AMU) and CO2 (44 AMU) being over concentrated at the bottom of the atmosphere with lighter molecules like O2 (32 AMU) and N2 (28 AMU) being much more scarce at the bottom where we need them.

Finally, in reference #4, your oft-posted "rediscovery" of the semi-emperical mass formula (Weizsäcker 1935) for isolated nuclei. It (the SEMF) does indeed have a parabolic shape in Z/A for nuclei of constant mass number, A, but it cannot be extrapolated to non-existent nuclei like you do.

continued...
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
...continued

If you take a stable, neutron-rich isotope and add neutrons you will get unstable isotopes of decreasing lifetimes, until you reach the neutron-"drip" line. The drip-line is the place in Z/A where additional neutrons will not attach to free nuclei and "drip" off into a neutron gas. But, even the nuclei inside the drip line are very unstable and neutron-gas near-drip-line nuclei can only exist briefly in very neutron-rich environments like supernovae and NS-NS and NS-BH mergers. The free neutrons and neutron-rich nuclei then decay increasing the Z/A of the mixture.

The only way to get lower Z/A nuclear matter is to compress it and keep it compressed. And the only force strong enough to compress nuclear matter is gravity. It can only exist inside NSs. If some nuclear matter did get free of a NS (such as in the NS-NS merger) it would explode violently.

In summary, Mr. Manuel's neutron-repulsion, NS-Fe Sun model is based on unwarranted extrapolation of various physics.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
and his conspiracy hallucination....
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Yes, a coincidence.

The model was given its name by the group of scientists meeting at the same Dutch hotel that gave the well known group of powerful politicians and businessmen its name.

I personally find the notion of all of those powerful people meeting in secret a bit disconcerting,


The Bilderberg is the first two words in the title of the report::

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

Why? An oversight, like

The Motel 6 Model of the Sun, or
The Red-Roof Inn Model of the Sun?

A. If Turekian, Clark [1] and Vinogradov [2] had met at the Bilderberg

1. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6, 346-348 (1969)

2. Geokhimiya No. 10, 1427-1431 (1975)

They might have issued

"The Bilderberg Model of Earth's Heterogeneous Accretion"

B. If Peter Toth [3], D D. Sabu, and I [4] met there,

3. Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)

4. Science 195, 208-209 (1977)

We might have issued

"The Bilderberg Model of the Pulsar Sun"

The entire history of science might have been changed!
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
Thats nonsense oliver and you know it. The sun cant possibley be a neutron star. Stellar demolitionists obviously knows more than you ever will, why not actually adress the science of his post? oh yeah, because you cant.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Research by two of the world's best known geochemist, Turekian of Yale and Vinogradov of the Vinogradov Institute of Geochemistry in Moscow are dismissed here as nonsense by "J S Dark Destruction" and "Stellar Demolitionist"?

"Scary" names are their only claim to fame, and those are as false as a $3 bill.

Where are Big Brother's lackeys with Nobel Prizes - e.g., Al Gore and the army of climatologists who received a Nobel Prize for falsified data on global temperatures?
rawa1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
another nail in the coffin of the theory that galaxy mergers are the main trigger for turning quiescent supermassive black holes into radiation-blasting active galactic nuclei
In dense aether model the galaxies are huge density fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas forming the vacuum, which are randomly condensing and evaporating across whole Universe (which would appear quite steady-state from this perspective). The active galactic nuclei correspond the initial state of galaxy formation, when the radiative formation of heavier particles is ignited inside of dense clouds of dark matter. Whereas the galactic mergers occurs rather at the end of galactic life, when most of their energy is already radiated into outside.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
Oliver:

Thank you for that link to the actual Bilderberg Paper. Now we know that you didn't read it as it doesn't have any of the claims you make about it. Its just a model of the photosphere and chromosphere that reached no definite conclusions, made no claim that the Sun is completely stable, has nothing to do with any global warming theory, and isn't part of the standard model you hate so much.

It is over 40 years old and had no computer modeling, no input from shady politicians, no Al Gore, no nothing that supports your bizarre attacks on it. Heck it doesn't even deal with the Sun's core in anyway and thus could have been written exactly the same way if they had used your self-contradicted Pulsar Sun silliness.

Do try reading what you post. That is the second time I have caught you posting stuff that didn't support the ranting you claimed it supported. The previous was the letter from Kissinger that didn't support you in any way.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Oct 20, 2011
ethelred, No way is it the 2nd time. Oliver claims papers actually support him all the time when they dont. he's even been known to mess with the html in the link to make a link to a legit nasa paper say that nasa confirmed neutron repulsion,he lied about cern supporting him,he lied about the expansion of the universe supporting him, he lied about the data his students helped him with and what it meant. he lied about the jupiter isotopes and what they meant when updated data refuted his theory. anyway, i'd say its probably the 100th time by now.....
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2011
Yep, it's not the "Motel 6 model" because they didn't meet at the Motel 6, they met at the Hotel de Bilderberg. Why you think that another group meeting at the same hotel a dozen years earlier and are also named for the hotel must be connected, I'll never know. (And you could call you model whatever you like, but it won't make a difference.)

There are many things in astrophysics named for where they were first discussed, or where a meeting took place. Two that come to mind are the "Urca process," a nuclear cycle important to cooling white dwarfs that was first discussed at the casino of the same name in Rio de Janerio, and the "Texas Meeting" on relativistic astrophysics which was first held in Texas and is usually held elsewhere.

I was also glad to see the "Bilderberg sun" paper and I'd like to discuss it in a bit more length, but not now as I need to go to my office and do some astrophysics. I had thought such models of the sun were no longer used, but discovered they are!
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2011
Of course, this is not my real name, it is an alias, a "nom-de-plume", and it serves a useful purpose. Since it is not tied to my actual name, someone can search for the actual me and not see all the transcripts of "dinner conversations" posted here. In many ways it is a bit liberating in that we can write without worry of small slip-ups being forever preserved by the internet's Elephant-like capacity to "never forget." These postings seem to me to be a lot like (in many respects) after-dinner conversations or cocktail-party chat and wouldn't those be different if C-SPAN was recording every word and publishing transcripts?

The use of aliases does not protect from one legal action for actual wrong doings, but it does separate you from any minor slights, that some may feel, being translated into other arenas.

Someday I may reveal myself, or create an alias for here or write a blog with my legal name. I may even have an alias and a public persona at the same time...
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2011
These postings seem to me to be a lot like after-dinner conversations . . . wouldn't those be different if C-SPAN was recording every word and publishing transcripts?


Yes, it was quite a coincidence that C-SPAN actually recorded an admission that NASA hid data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter:

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

Data that confirmed 1977 [1,2], 1983 [3] and 1985 [4] reports of the Sun's layered interior [5].

1. Science 195, 208-209 (1977)

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

2. Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)

www.nature.com/na...9a0.html

3. Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

4. Astron and Astrophy 149, 65-72 (1985)

http://adsabs.har...49...65R

5. Meteoritics & Planetary Sci 33-A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

Five reminders that the Bilderberg Sun is false.

Oliver K. Manuel

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.