Black hole hunters tackle a cosmic conundrum

Dartmouth-led black hole hunters tackle a cosmic conundrum
A Hubble Space Telescope image shows the Henize 2-10 galaxy, with a hidden supermassive black hole at its center. Credit: NASA

Dartmouth astrophysicists and their colleagues have not only proven that a supermassive black hole exists in a place where it isn't supposed to be, but in doing so have opened a new door to what things were like in the early universe.

Henize 2-10 is a small irregular galaxy that is not too far away in astronomical terms—30 million light-years. "This is a dwarf starburst galaxy—a small galaxy with regions of very rapid star formation—about 10 percent of the size of our own Milky Way," says co-author Ryan Hickox, an assistant professor in Dartmouth's Department of Physics and Astronomy. "If you look at it, it's a blob, but it surprisingly harbors a central black hole."

Hickox says there may be similar small in the known universe, but this is one of the only ones close enough to allow detailed study. Lead author Thomas Whalen, Hickox and a team of other researchers have now analyzed a series of four X-ray observations of Henize 2-10 using three space telescopes over 13 years, providing conclusive evidence for the existence of a black hole.

Their findings appear as an online preprint to be published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. A PDF also is available on request.

Suspicions about Henize 2-10 first arose in 2011 when another team, that included some of the co-authors, first looked at galaxy Henize 2-10 and tried to explain its behavior. The observed dual emissions of X-ray and radio waves, often associated with a black hole, gave credence to the presence of one. The instruments utilized were Japan's Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (1997), the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton (2004, 2011) and NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (2001).

"The galaxy was bright in 2001, but it has gotten less bright over time," says Hickox. "This is not consistent with being powered only by star formation processes, so it almost certainly had to have a small supermassive black hole—small compared to the largest supermassive black holes in massive elliptical galaxies, but is still a million times the mass of the sun."

A characteristic of supermassive black holes is that they do change with time—not a huge amount, explains Hickox, "and that is exactly what Tom Whalen found," he says. "This variability definitely tells us that the emission is coming from a compact source at the center of this system, consistent with it being a ."

While supermassive black holes are typically found in the central bulges of galaxies, Henize 2-10 has no bulge. "All the associations that people have made between galaxies and black holes tell us there ought to be no black hole in this system," says Whalen, but the team has proven otherwise. Whalen, a recent Dartmouth graduate, is now a member of the Chandra X-ray Center team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

A big question is where black holes come from. "When people try to simulate where the galaxies come from, you have to put in these black holes at the beginning, but we don't really know what the conditions were. These dwarf starburst galaxies are the closest analogs we have in the universe around us now, to the first galaxies early in the universe," says Whalen.

The authors conclude: "Our results confirm that nearby star-forming galaxies can indeed form massive and that by implication so can their primordial counterparts."

"Studying those to get some sense of what might have happened very early in the universe is very powerful," says Hickox.


Explore further

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Provided by Dartmouth College
Citation: Black hole hunters tackle a cosmic conundrum (2015, April 20) retrieved 14 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-black-hole-hunters-tackle-cosmic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
973 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 20, 2015
A big question is where black holes come from. "When people try to simulate where the galaxies come from, you have to put in these black holes at the beginning, but we don't really know what the conditions were.


LOL, you gotta love astrophysics and all it's metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

Apr 20, 2015
The article talks about galaxies forming black holes, but this particular case might be one of a black hole forming a galaxy instead. This is something of a chicken-and-egg problem. It's also an anomaly, apparently, so looking for more small galaxies like this one that have an "unexplainable" black hole and strong star formation could lead to the definition of a new class of galaxies.

My personal belief is that life is unlikely in ellipticals with their hypermassive black holes, and that spirals are far more likely to harbor life, simply due to the high-energy radiation that sleets through the massive ellipticals.

Apr 20, 2015
Cantdrive

I don't think you even understood what he was saying. He was not implying that it doesn't make sense that black holes existed in the early universe, they almost certainly did.
He was asking what mechanism would be able to create these behemoths shortly after the big bang. Of course there was a lot of energy in a small area, but what exactly happened, we don't know yet.

Apr 20, 2015
Of course there was a lot of energy in a small area, but what exactly happened, we don't know yet.


"And God divided the light from the darkness..."

The "Primordial" Black Holes are the darkness, perhaps, and the CMB is the "light".

In principle such black holes could be almost any mass from mountain mass to galaxy mass, because their rate of decay is also related to the properties of the region of space they are in. Do they feed, on what, and how fast, etc.

The answer is both scenarios are true.

Some galaxies form around existing black holes.

Some black holes form within existing galaxies.

Why should that be so hard to accept?

Black holes consume Dark Matter (if it exists), and presumably consume Dark Energy as well, which means that if Dark Matter exists then all black holes orbits decay towards the center of mass of the nearest Dark Matter structure with which they are interacting, as they pull one another together.

Apr 20, 2015
Now I don't believe DM exists, but if it did exist it would imply that all black holes orbits decay to the center of their host galaxy or galaxy cluster over cosmic time.

Even if the DM phenomenon is an error, we would expect BH to decay in orbits because of their own frame dragging and other phenomena.

This implies SOME SMBH are formed from the mergers of many stellar massive black holes, while other SMBH have existed since the first instant of creation of the universe.

T'hooft claims you can tell everything about a black hole by looking at it's outside surface of the event horizon.

I find that claim preposterous because the evento horizon is not actually an object by a LIMIT based on the mass of the BH and it's velocity relative to the nearest massive body. If it is moving toward or away the event horizon will be stretched out or compressed, and likewise if the second object is very massive. So the EH contains NO information in it's own right. Hawking, in this case

Apr 20, 2015
should have stood his ground.

Apr 20, 2015
I have a black, sound proof box and there's some internal movvement evident by observing it. But we don't know what that movement is. It could be degenerate matter, it could be a rabbit, it could even be two squirrels, but with no more sensory input besdes the wobble of the object we can't say what that mass is or was.

I don't see how T'hooft could get this so wrong, and the scientific community agree with him. When I first became aware of this theory I was immediately repulsed by it. I can grind up some cow meat and you'll be hard pressed to tell where it came from, and that's ntohing compared to the matter inside a black hole. With the meat you can do DNA analysis. With the Black Hole there is no meat and there is no DNA, and there are no molecules even. There is only degenerate matter. There isn't even neutrons.

I have proven that I can make changes to information which make it irretrievable to anyone except God himself.

Apr 20, 2015
These supermassive black holes have more in common wiht "Dark Stars" than the Einstein's relativistic black holes. They are enormous in mass just as the calculated enormity of the so-called "Dark Star".

Origins matter, even if we can't prove the manner of creation. We can't assume the manner of creation for any individual object unless you can rule out reasonable alternatives.

I presented two alternatives:

1, SMBH have existed since the beginning of time.

2, Some SMBH form from black hole mergers.

I would expect there to be LESS "free" dark matter in a galaxy hosting an SMBH which formed primarily from black hole mergers, as the Dark Matter would be inside the SMBH instead of in halos.

3, You can't necessarily tell the difference eons after the fact because all the "information" got destroyed.


Apr 20, 2015
I know you will all hate me for my wild speculation. I have said it before, and I'm brave (or silly enough) to suggest it again. I believe (note the none scientific words there), the early universe did have primordial black holes, and that initially they streamed matter/energy through from an older universe (think parallel universe concept). This continued to occur until some balance point was achieved at either end of this black/white hole wormhole. The two "holes" still exist and each end has it's own galaxy of which gravity leaks through to the other, ie a dark matter candidate.

Right, counting the down votes.
The voting commences in 3....2....1

Apr 21, 2015
cantdrive85 claimed
LOL, you gotta love astrophysics and all it's metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.
Was it you claiming black holes (BH) are actually "plasmoids" and part of the Electric Universe theory ?
Eg
https://en.wikipe...Plasmoid

If thats the case, then do you deny the equation for gravity F=G0m1m2/d^2 and derived acceleration due to gravity a=G0m1/d^2 show definitively that with sufficient mass you will have an indicated 'escape velocity' of the speed of light or greater - such that its much like a one way valve but, outside the event horizon angular momentum is still in effect eg the perpendicular jets ?

For there to be a plasmoid charge separation is essential, given a BH in principle has a high gravitational field (& observed) then charge separation is likely impossible !

How do you reconcile these and especially so is there any maths for that scenario where a plasmoid can exist in an immensely strong gravitational field ?

Apr 21, 2015
I believe (note the none scientific words there), the early universe did have primordial black holes, and that initially they streamed matter/energy through from an older universe (think parallel universe concept). This continued to occur until some balance point was achieved at either end of this black/white hole wormhole. The two "holes" still exist and each end has it's own galaxy of which gravity leaks through to the other, ie a dark matter candidate.

How exactly is your theory different from "unicorns created the early universe"? You have just as much indication for your theory than I have for the unicorn one.

The voting commences in 3....2....1

I think I'll start at "1"
...and not because I hate you (I couldn't care less about you) but because your post is rubbish.


Apr 21, 2015
@antialis_physorg...

I dont think the post is rubbish---

you have theories of primordial black holes:
http://phys.org/n...les.html

you have theories about black holes transporting matter from 'parallel universes':
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

So thinking about this the theory in these contexts and of what the poster said is not that far off---

Unicorns? Not even a good analogy. That makes no sense; come on man, think outside the box!

Creativity is what makes discoveries not regurgitating what is already known...its about making connections to the work out there.

Apr 21, 2015
I think I'll start at "1"
...and not because I hate you (I couldn't care less about you) but because your post is rubbish.


The Big Bang, were it in the absence of some pre-existing cause, is just another "Unicorn," since it comes from a cosmic singularity.

At least we can look for his unicorns, we cant' even look for the "unicorn" you believe in.

Now I believe in an eternal God, but it does not meet the definition of a unicorn, it meets the conditions and definition of logic itself, among other things.

Hawking believes everything came from zero. 1 -1 = 0.

Dawkings believes everything came from a "special kind of nothing". hahahahah whatever that means.

However, "God created the world from nothing," but notice God existed before the nothing.

God:
Existence{P, everything else} (Eternal)

Big Bang:
Nothing{} (empty set) can do no work.

You figure that one out friend. Your own unicorns are much harder to believe in than God.

Apr 21, 2015
Nothing{P} is an incongruency, because Nothing cannot contain a process or entity.

If Nothing{} cannot contain anything then it can't contain an origin of the universe.

However, if P is a thing which exists before the universe then it pre-dates the order we know and created the laws we know, which makes it a MIND.

The most educated people know better, and they still propagate these lies of anti-theism, and that will condemn them further still.

Apr 21, 2015
Returners claimed
Now I believe in an eternal God, but it does not meet the definition of a unicorn, it meets the conditions and definition of logic itself, among other things
Please explain the attributes of this "eternal god" and its best method of communication to us lesser mortals ?

AND especially

Upon what is your belief based ?

Apr 21, 2015
reset claimed
Why explain? You aren't REALLY interested
My post is not aimed at reset unless he is able to answer as if he is Returners ?

reset claimed
At least God's creation of the universe doesn't violate the known laws of Physics....unlike BB fantasy and BH's
Which god does reset claim, a middle eastern, a far eastern, odd western version, eg Scientology - other, which ?

reset asked
Show me an image of a black hole
Obviously since light cannot escape you cannot see it, surely you knew that already. Extreme acceleration of several stellar bodies is observed, thus calculated gravitation agrees with 'visible' properties.

reset claimed
What's that??...it's a bunch of light?? Ahh yes...high energy photons require a Black hole in order to exist...just like all the identical ones we generate here on earth...with all the Black holes we created right?
You are referring to the accretion disk, extreme tidal forces, delta angular momentum etc ?

:-)

Apr 21, 2015
Why not examine the simplest explanation? There is plenty of evidence now about the link between black holes and their surrounding galaxy, to conclude that black hole core stars form the surrounding galaxy. I have been predicting this for years now, and still the patch maniacs continue their merger mania.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv


Apr 21, 2015
reset stated
Hey Mike...it's plasma...Ionized atoms...charged particles
But forgot or didnt get an education in Physics to understand that once the gravity is strong enough charged particles are merged into a neutron star:-
https://en.wikipe...ron_star

The problem reset has & it is significant is, he cannot describe let alone explain why gravitational field strength should NOT go beyond a neutron star & thus raise the acceleration due to gravity to an indicated value at or above the speed of light as mass increase ?

reset with immature sarcasm claimed
Explain your stupidy and I'll tell you what God I believe in.
Evidence is clear, anyone can check the posts; reset comparatively has low intelligence, no interest in understanding essential Physics at anything beyond high school level, is apt to misrepresent high school physics & is unable to delve into any math to progress his claim as he cannot understand what an event horizon means.

Apr 21, 2015
reset:

At least God's creation of the universe doesn't violate the known laws of Physics....unlike BB fantasy and BH's.


Please cite reference. I am interested in reading it.


Apr 21, 2015
If thats the case, then do you deny the equation for gravity F=G0m1m2/d^2 and derived acceleration due to gravity a=G0m1/d^2 show definitively that with sufficient mass you will have an indicated 'escape velocity' of the speed of light or greater


Yep, I have no problem denying such pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, although your mathematical nonsense has nothing to do with plasmoids.

For there to be a plasmoid charge separation is essential, given a BH in principle has a high gravitational field (& observed) then charge separation is likely impossible !


Charge separation is not a problem, this region is heterogeneous, not homogeneous. The comments about the BH are meaningless, you're still foisting your pseudoscientific nonsense upon a real entity and region. For there to be a plasmoid, there need be Z-pinched plasma, a condition all the data supports. The plasmoid is creating the high G field, as well as the magnetic field, and the jets.

Apr 21, 2015
I know you will all hate me for my wild speculation.
No, I think you want to learn and you speculate in order to find out new things. It's a valid technique. I hope I can help.

I have said it before, and I'm brave (or silly enough) to suggest it again. I believe (note the none scientific words there), the early universe did have primordial black holes, and that initially they streamed matter/energy through from an older universe (think parallel universe concept).
The question here is, what observable phenomena do you believe this explains better than ΛCDM? Because without knowing that ridiculing you is footless. If you'll answer this question, then you can learn something.

contd

Apr 21, 2015
This continued to occur until some balance point was achieved at either end of this black/white hole wormhole. The two "holes" still exist and each end has it's own galaxy of which gravity leaks through to the other, ie a dark matter candidate.
But the physics of General Relativity shows that the extra mass can't be at the centers of galaxies; it has to be spread throughout them. See? You already learned something new.

Right, counting the down votes.
The voting commences in 3....2....1
I ain't voting. It's chickensxxt unless you start lying, and I haven't seen you lie yet. Keep asking, and keep speculating. I bet your next speculation is better. If you learn something new from this, and treasure it, I'll give you a five later.

Apr 21, 2015
Is dark matter associated with EVERY Galaxy or just ones with Black Holes at their core. Or completely no correlation at all to Black Holes? Just I can't help but think that dark matter and black holes are connected in some way.

Apr 22, 2015
cantdrive85 missed the point
Yep, I have no problem denying such pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, although your mathematical nonsense has nothing to do with plasmoids.
The gravitational formula works & has been routinely used for space travel for decades.

There is nothing from you or anyone for that matter which suggests an upper limit other than the issue of acceleration at the speed of light re escape velocity.

ie. Its surely obvious, plug the numbers in to the equation supplied and with algebra you can work out the mass needed for a BH, its quite simple

cantdrive85 claimed
The plasmoid is creating the high G field, as well as the magnetic field, and the jets.
This is completely new, a direct relationship between plasma & magnetics to gravitational field !

How might one use this formula to launch spacecraft AND navigate the various planetary bodies in the same way Voyager & Pioneer have.

Formula please relating plasmoid/magnetics to gravitation ?

Apr 22, 2015
cantdrive85 and reset missed the point
Charge separation is not a problem, this region is heterogeneous, not homogeneous
Whether you characterise it as hetero/homo is irrelevant as its only a qualitative view. The gravitational maths & as applied to a neutron star, which we have observed follows from QM & gravitation shows clearly that once the gravitation is high enough the charges are forced together so ordinary ~11min decay of neutrons back to p+ & e- does NOT occur, so therefore no charge separation

cantdrive85 claimed
The comments about the BH are meaningless, you're still foisting your pseudoscientific nonsense upon a real entity and region
No. It is a linear extension of the maths eg a=G0m1/d^2 which is very simple, the extension is the G field gets large enough such that a BH is created - its just a region where the G field is so high light cannot escape.

What math cantdrive85, declares definitively that the G field CANNOT become large enough ?

Apr 22, 2015
reset narrow view forced him to misread my post & mentioned this
LMAO...Mike seems to think that the material orbiting a BH is a Spread out Neutron star
Obviously you havent read link I supplied re Neutron Stars (NS), if you had you'd notice & deduce the neutron star is a step occasionally BEFORE a black hole ?
https://en.wikipe...ron_star

A NS also accretes, obviously when sufficient mass collects the G field is stronger so a region above the neutron star (as it collects mass) retards the escape of light, there is reference to this re photon sphere.

There's nothing in gravitational maths, especially routinely used eg in launches/space flight that implies mass going beyond creating a field so light cannot escape & even more AT the BH 'surface' ie below the Event Horizon (EH)

Therefore a transitional region, the EH. Obviously extends further outward from NS as they accrete mass to become (larger & larger) BHs

Maths to show it CANT happen please ?

Apr 22, 2015
It is not easy for people invested time, money, efforts and hopes for a successful career, to accept fact that they were lied and studied erroneous theories. Many of them even instinctively to feel that something in their knowledge acquired in school and university is wrong, their feelings will be an effective obstacle to seek the truth diligently and to recognize their delusions to others. Some of them become zealous defenders to their own illusions. But they have to be calm and confident because there is nothing more valuable than truth. Career is always with low priority.


Apr 22, 2015
reset misunderstands again from his position of dogma
Mikes problem is that only math has told him this is possible
Gravitational maths is used routinely to launch spacecraft & maneuver re the slingshot effect, its very predictable.

Please show math which SUBSTANTIVELY proves it CANNOT at high enough level for Neutron Stars which subsequently leads to Black Holes ?

reset claimed
Also must have missed the news that we actually measure and observe DECREASING gravitational acceleration the deeper into the earth we go
No. As I mentioned to you weeks ago it depends upon the density of the strata. ie Crust is comparatively lower density than Mantle so Obviously higher G is not at surface it MUST be some way into crust & depends on density

reset claimed
Mike is upset that the math he thinks describes reality is worth as much as his post stating gravity makes charge differential impossible
Obviously you havent run the numbers re the G formula, why not ?

Apr 22, 2015
viko_mx claimed
It is not easy for people invested time, money, efforts and hopes for a successful career, to accept fact that they were lied and studied erroneous theories
What is a better 'theory' which can be tested & which can be routinely used at a low level Eg to Launch spacecraft ?

Or, you deny the launching/existence of spacecraft ?

viko_mx claimed
.. their feelings will be an effective obstacle to seek the truth diligently and to recognize their delusions to others
Who are these people, do you mean those who have no education or understanding of the Scientific Method ?

Or should people rely on claims from an old book instead, which cannot be checked or qualified ?

viko_mx claimed
Some of them become zealous defenders to their own illusions. But they have to be calm and confident because there is nothing more valuable than truth. Career is always with low priority.
Or be zealous proselytizers trying to obfuscate evidentiary physics ?

Apr 22, 2015
I deny only big part of modern cosmology - the theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of biological evolution which are connected, the theory of relativity which is connected with theory of cosmic evolution, and some part of fundamental physics. They are fairy tales invented for the people who have not the habit to thinking without assistance, for visionaries who have not the habit to seeing the reality or for people who have not adequate education.

Apr 22, 2015
viko_mx claimed
I deny only big part of modern cosmology - the theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of biological evolution which are connected, the theory of relativity which is connected with theory of cosmic evolution, and some part of fundamental physics
Have told you & your close friend Ren82, General & Special Relativity is PROVEN & I ADD there is nothing in ANY religious text ANYWHERE which says it WON'T happen, prove it ?

You have NO basis on which to deny relativity at all !

You can see biological evolution is based on chemical self-assembly

viko_mx claimed
They are fairy tales invented for the people who have not the habit to thinking without assistance, for visionaries who have not the habit to seeing the reality or for people who have not adequate education.
Very stupid ugly fairytale to claim a god punished EVERYONE for ALL time for EVER just because a girl was put in position BY the god to be manipulated by a devil !

Anything better ?

Apr 22, 2015
General relativity is never proven. Do not decieve yorself. Thsi is the thories that treate cosmic vacuum as nothing or rather geometrical concept which can be streched to infinity in both directions.
You have a very wrong idea about God, God characyer and the Christian faith. But you do not try to change this and I do not see any sense to educate you. Call it intuition.

Apr 22, 2015
viko_mx claimed
General relativity is never proven
WRONG !

Evidence, why ignore it ? Is there some way you can rationalise that NO religion states it DOESNT happen ?

Why can't you answer ANY of my questions, do you have a disability that PREVENTS you - why ?

Proof GR/SR Relativity
https://en.wikipe...periment
https://en.wikipe...g_System
https://en.wikipe...lativity

Particularly non-mathematical PROOF for YOU viko_ms because its OBVIOUS you haven't high school maths in calculus or even Physics, ie PLEASE read & TRY to understand !
http://www.upscal...tion.pdf

Please please read link, its VERY simple !

viko_mx claimed
Do not decieve yorself
How is Evidence ANY sort of deception ?

Why can't you answer simple questions a high school graduate can answer ?

Why SHOULD GR/SR fail, can you offer ANY reason PLEASE ?

Apr 22, 2015
Returners,
If you are going to type out an physics essay, don't start with the bible, I lost interest immediately and you just wasted your time.

Apr 22, 2015
reset claimed
Because they don't apply to the material that is emitting the photons that we detect from this region
Beg pardon ?

Why ?

What region; BH descent, the accretion disk - what, this is crucial !

reset claimed
You are very confused, as is evident in most of your posts
Beg pardon ?

I am asking questions, you are failing to offer ANYTHING which shows WHY classic gravitation should NOT apply ?

reset claimed
..Mike applying the math which creates a theoretical neutron star to an accretion disk in an attempt to back his initial gaff about the lack of charge differential in a region where everything is moving at relativistic speeds and is millions of degrees C
Each time you reply, you diverge, this is not mature, you distraction. please indicate WHY classic gravitation should NOT apply, asked B4 ?

reset claims
..where everything is moving at relativistic..
With respect to what precisely ?

Neutron stars proven, please converge ?

Apr 22, 2015
reset asked
Please factor in the speed and temperature of the actual material we are discussing (as in NOT a collapsing star) and show that it can
With respect to what ?

It seems you don't have a basic handle on relativity ?

reset asked
And maybe a description of the thought process that led you to believe you can apply the G formula to relativistic particles to compress them into neutrons...actually,dont
NOTHING to suggest rotational velocity or its rectilinear motion is anywhere near relativistic speeds & if it did, then just apply Lorentz, easy !

Please show some (presumably) asymptotic maths with limit boundaries as to WHY classic gravitational maths should NOT apply ?

Obviously Gravitational maths is subject to relativity via Lorentz but, you don't seem to have a handle on it.

Since you can't offer maths, what interpretive/intuitive rationale can you offer which removes gravitational math as a 'switch' without a functional discontinuity ?

Details

Apr 22, 2015
reset claimed
But clearly it isn't the difference between functional math based on observation and theoretical math which leads to physics breaking down
The physics does NOT break down, the maths only shows a high G field in a BH, one can argue about what is at the center whether singularity or very compressed neutron star, it doesnt mean EH doesn't function as region of 'c' discontinuity !

reset claimed
You didn't really explain it, but you repeatedly demonstrated it during your attempts at qualifying your original screw up
No screw up, you didnt answer my question assuming you had actually understood physics BEFORE you launched off into something else never shown to have basis in Physics WITH maths - ever !

reset claimed
I believe in the same God most people do, just not the religion man created around him. It's kinda like this discussion, there is real physics, then there is the math based fantasy..
You haven't specified any god hrrrm "idea" !

Apr 22, 2015
reset claimed
When math is your only physics, you look like you do in this thread....like math is your only physics. One dumb ass remark and several lame attempts to qualify it or deflect away show exactly how much you understand (don't) about this topic
No, you are naive, you appear misled as to the relationship between math & physics - in one respect Maths describes with quantifiable boundaries offered by Physics re Evidence. You don't have ANY of that & appear as uneducated well, unless you have some rationale eg some maths, some experiment, some physics framework to qualify equations of motion ?

So far absolutely NOTHING, nada, all I hear from you is anger, nothing which even suggests you are prepared to propose an alternative theory by FIRST studying the prevailing accepted proven physics !

reset stated
Maybe Ira needs a cabin boy.
I look at physics, what does IRA stand for "Inertial Reference of Acceleration" re absolute rotational frame - what ?

Apr 22, 2015
reset claimed
...that gravity negates the possibility of charge differential in matter that can only exist as a plasma
No. I specifically asked you why you cannot extend the G field maths to that of a neutron star & beyond to a BH, you failed to address that & instead insult, not smart ?

reset claimed
.. I am also not an astrophysical body, admit you fucked up, and go on your merry misguided way
Not interested in you, only Physics. You haven't answered my specific question but, instead sidetrack with claims !

reset claimed
...that you really don't understand anything from a physical standpoint and math is all you have
Physics is understanding WITH maths as not only does it describe it offers means to predict motion.

NB: You still have NIL maths describing just WHY gravitational equation CANNOT lead to a Neutron Star as observed or WHY it can't go to BH ?

Why can't you focus upon WHY existing gravitational maths can't extend to a BH & its EH ?

Apr 22, 2015
Is dark matter associated with EVERY Galaxy or just ones with Black Holes at their core.
Astrophysicists believe that the central black hole is a key part of galaxy formation; if they're right, then black holes are about as common as dark matter. However, the direct evidence is thin: only about ten supermassive black holes have been positively identified in the centers of galaxies so far. On the other hand, quasars and other active galactic nuclei appear to have been very common in the early universe, and the source of the light and other radiation from them has been shown to be supermassive black holes.

On the other hand, every galaxy we've looked at has contained dark matter; it's far easier to see than a black hole.

Or completely no correlation at all to Black Holes?
Given current knowledge I have to go with "no correlation."

Just I can't help but think that dark matter and black holes are connected in some way.
If they are it's nothing obvious.

Apr 25, 2015
..."God created the world from nothing,"...


The funniest thing of all is that your Bible doesn't even teach that. That idea has to be interpreted into it. That idea of creation out of nothing didn't come about until the last quarter or so of the second century, later to be adopted by Judaism as well, but the original idea was creation from formless matter as can be seen in the Apocrypha (Wisdom 11:17), as well as in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the canon. It wasn't really until Athenagoras and afterward that the idea of creation out of nothing gained vogue among the early Christians. And, then, they read that idea back into your Bible. Just saying.

Apr 25, 2015
reset claims
This link is based on mainstream accretion disk theory which Mike claims to understand not only the math but the physical process.
No. You missed the point, I asked cantdrvie85 re the BH & G equation, you jumped in I wasn't addressing the accretion disk. Posts ~ 21 Apr 2015

Still focused on my initial challenge, cantdrive85 claims BH is really a plasmoid, ie thing beneath event horizon. Cantdrive85 claimed its magnetism causes gravity force, I asked about equation but, nothing :-(

reset claims
In an attempt to qualify the above quotes Mike proposed that the matter is neutral because it is being compressed into neutron stars and cited the relevant math as though core collapse to produce a neutron star and gravitational acceleration of disk matter are the same
Go back & check, can read plainly I addressed the BH not its accretion disk, see it makes sense to you now...

My Q again.
The G formula has no upper bound, so why SHOULDNT a BH form ?

Apr 25, 2015
reset claim
Because we are talking about the Plasma orbiting the hypothetical object you twit, not the object itself
No. Being impolite doesnt help you. The evidence is clear I asked cantdrive85 re the BH, YOU however jumped in where did you decide to change from answering a Q re a BH ? you carried on & made no effort to clarify until you make impolite comments later, thats not mature...

reset claims
To support your gaff about charge differential with core collapse equations when the gravity feild is external to the collapsing objects is blatantly wrong
You clearly misread again, its obvious when you go back & check I addressed cantdrive85 re the BH itself NOT the accretion disk.

reset claims perhaps a course in analytical thinking to go with the rest of that education could save you some future embarassment. Plainly you misread, being offensive doesnt help you :-(

Focus. I asked specifically re the G equation re the BH, why can't you apply it ?

Apr 25, 2015
@reset
Addressing your jibe re a god & religion, can you answer a simple straightforward question please.

"How does your claimed personal human oriented deity or any claimed deity whether personal or not communicate with humans; method, frequency, clarify, evidentiary etc ?"

Anything definitive ?

Since you address your god's "sense of humour" how can it be possible for any deity, god or human to ever have a genuine sincere sense of humour as communicated (as in a classic joke) if they can always see the punchline coming and even the start of any and all jokes long before ?

Predicated upon humour as a sudden shift in context, confusion etc or do you have better definition ?

Or are you claiming some tenuous nebulous form of humour only a god can possibly understand ?

Apr 25, 2015
Nothing{P} is an incongruency, because Nothing cannot contain a process or entity.

If Nothing{} cannot contain anything then it can't contain an origin of the universe.

...


False analogy. A singularity technically isn't nothing and the singularity contained everything that now exists in the universe (and some things that no longer exist in large quantities), just on a sub-quantum level. It is just also that there was no time as we know it because time was curved in on itself and had no meaning as we know it in such a state. I tend to think of a singularity in loose analogy to a considerably more disorganized and supercompacted Bose-Einstein Condensate, where the normal laws of physics relating to matter break down completely.

Apr 25, 2015
Hi Skepticus_Rex. I was reading-only again because I'm very busy still; however, I saw your comment, and was impelled to point out that concepts like "time was curved in on itself" is not science/physics concept. It's rather maths abstraction or metaphysics mumbo jumbo.

'Time' is only 'extant/measurable' via its abstract derivation from real motion; and comparisons made between motional extents by using chosen observable motional 'standard' for that comparison. Hence time's only 'existence' is as an analytical maths abstraction dimensional 'term/value' in a maths/geometry analytical construct. It's motion/process itself which exists; and may be reversed, spun etc etc, but not 'time' (except as a mere 'conversion/relation convenience' in maths equations and abstract visualizations). PLease be careful to stick to actual meaningful science/physics REAL concepts/features/properties when presuming to correct others re REAL science/physics aspects/entities/descriptions. Thanks. :)

Apr 25, 2015
Maybe Ira needs a cabin boy.


@ reset-no-fate-a2g-(some other names too I forget right now)-Skippy. How you are Cher? I was doing real good until you dragged me into this one. If you would notice it, I have hardly been making any postums lately. I did not make any in this article.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. On towboats we don't have cabin boys. They are on fancy boats peoples pay to ride on. We got the Skipper-Skippy, the Pilot-Skippy (he's like the 1st Mate), we got the Deckhand-Skippys (four of them), we got the Cook-Skippette, and we got the Lead-deckhand-boss-Skippy (he's like the Skipper-Skippy's and the engineer-Skippy's assistant, the jack-of-all-trades-Skippy) and then we got me the Engineer-Skippy. That's it. Most of the time I mean, sometimes we got to make do a man short but that's not a big deal on the long line like we work. We don't have any cabinboy-Skippy.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are too Cher? I was fine until reset-ET AL-Skippy dragged me into it.

Apr 25, 2015
P.S. for you reset-no-fate-a2g-Skippy. How you are again Cher? The other one I forget but now I remember me. It was rubberduckman-Skippy. Hooyee, you are almost as bad as Zephir-Skippy when it comes to changing names.

Apr 25, 2015
A singularity technically isn't nothing and the singularity contained everything that now exists in the universe (and some things that no longer exist in large quantities), just on a sub-quantum level.
The current ΛCDM model of the creation of the universe has no singularity. Instead, the universe expands exponentially over a period of some 10⁻⁴³ seconds from a submicroscopic vacuum fluctuation in a pre-existing flat, timeless multiverse into a gigantic empty spacetime; the driver of this expansion is dark energy AKA cosmological constant. The cosmological constant's value is unstable, and it undergoes vacuum decay and dumps its energy into this empty spacetime, forming the Big Bang; as you can see, this means the Big Bang actually happened over all of the existing spacetime, rather than when it was submicroscopic.

contd

Apr 25, 2015
The universe has undergone enormous expansion since that time, so much that the observable universe has expanded from the size of a pea to the 13 billion some-odd light years we currently can see. This implies that the density at the end of the inflation (which is the name for the exponential expansion) was enormous, far beyond the ability of even the LHC to replicate.

This density would have been high enough to create a singularity if it weren't for the enormous energy of the existing particles, far beyond the ability of gravity (the weakest of the four forces) to contain.

Note the difference between "universe" and "observable universe." Many cosmologists fail to note this when talking among themselves; but we laymen must remember that when astrophysicists and cosmologists talk about "the universe was the size of a pea," they mean the *observable* universe, not the *whole* universe.

contd

Apr 25, 2015
The whole universe must be over a hundred billion light years across for things to be as we see them; of that we can only see 26 billion light years (13 billion in each direction). If it were not that big, we would be able to see the effects of the "edge" within the observable universe, and we cannot.

It is just also that there was no time as we know it because time was curved in on itself and had no meaning as we know it in such a state.
This is an accurate statement of conditions in the metaverse that spawned our universe; inflation however "expanded" time along with the "big three" spatial dimensions. The "beginning of time," therefore, as our universe sees it, was the original vacuum fluctuation from which our universe first inflated, then Big Banged.

contd

Apr 25, 2015
I tend to think of a singularity in loose analogy to a considerably more disorganized and supercompacted Bose-Einstein Condensate, where the normal laws of physics relating to matter break down completely.
There may be similarities between a BEC and the Big Bang; however, even a BEC can't replicate the conditions of the vacuum fluctuation, since BECs experience time and the background of the vacuum fluctuation has no time. Your analogy has some relevance, but is not very informative; it's very difficult to describe "no time" other than mathematically. But hopefully this conversation will give you a better handle on the current theories of cosmology.

Apr 28, 2015
@reset
Despite your claims, evidence is clear, I've been referring to a BH, you attempt to shift to the EH, please see I asked cantdrive85 re the BH re gravitation. Please focus on one thing at a time ?

Re BH
What evidence is there a BH is a plasmoid as asked cantfrive85 ?
What limit is there on the gravitation formula so a BH WITH an EH cannot form as claimed ?
ie. Here is my Q again
"The G formula has no upper bound, so why SHOULDNT a BH form ?"
can you answer it from your understanding of EU as it seems you share it well with cantdrive85 ?

re Your god
Asked you questions, you havent answered :-(
Concluded all writings about a claimed human oriented god are ONLY emotive claims - never provable, even old testament has David claiming god (only) spoke to him in a dream. If you think dreams are reliable its not my problem :-(

The killer for idea of ANY deity obviously is its very narrow selective impotent method of communications, only through a male who claims :-(

Apr 28, 2015
What evidence is there a BH is a plasmoid as asked cantfrive85 ?


None, there can't be. A BH is a fictional mathematical entity which has no basis in reality. A plasmoid is a real measurable entity, there can be no confusing the two. Astrophysicists misinterpret the plasmoid and it's properties as a BH. They are just not as knowledgeable of reality as they are their conjured mathematical make believe world.

"The G formula has no upper bound, so why SHOULDNT a BH form ?"


Just because you can make a formula, boundless or not, does not mean it has any bearing on reality whatsoever. The formulas used to support epicycles were flawless, but meaningless to reality. Same goes for GR, SR, and much of QM.

can you answer it from your understanding of EU

Has nothing to do with EU, has to do with understanding the difference between maths and reality.

May 05, 2015
IYL-International Year of Light 2015-Cosmos conundrums
h2g2.com/entry/A87830751/conversation/view/F22141393/T8313398

May 06, 2015
cantdrive85 claims
A BH is a fictional mathematical entity which has no basis in reality
On what basis, there is NO evidence that the gravitational formula has ANY upper bound AND that formula has immense evidence in describing forces eg Your weight, gravitational potential, local orbits etc

ie. What particular piece of Physics do you rely upon to support your claim a region of space which we may call a BH CANNOT have sufficient gravitational field eg from large mass such that its escape velocity CANNOT reach that of light ?

cantdrive85 claims
Just because you can make a formula, boundless or not, does not mean it has any bearing on reality whatsoever
It arose from real observations & further observations confirm it

cantdrive85 claims
The formulas used to support epicycles were flawless, but meaningless to reality. Same goes for GR, SR, and much of QM
Really ?

So its NOT the formulas of GR & SR which are relied upon to make corrections to GPS, what then ?

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