Close galactic encounter leaves 'nearly naked' supermassive black hole

Close galactic encounter leaves 'nearly naked' supermassive black hole
Artist's conception of how the "nearly naked" supermassive black hole originated. Credit: Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF.

Astronomers using the super-sharp radio vision of the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) have found the shredded remains of a galaxy that passed through a larger galaxy, leaving only the smaller galaxy's nearly-naked supermassive black hole to emerge and speed away at more than 2,000 miles per second.

The are part of a cluster of galaxies more than 2 billion light-years from Earth. The close encounter, millions of years ago, stripped the smaller galaxy of nearly all its stars and gas. What remains is its black hole and a small galactic remnant only about 3,000 light-years across. For comparison, our Milky Way Galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years across.

The discovery was made as part of a program to detect supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the Sun, that are not at the centers of galaxies. Supermassive black holes reside at the centers of most galaxies. Large galaxies are thought to grow by devouring smaller companions. In such cases, the black holes of both are expected to orbit each other, eventually merging.

"We were looking for orbiting pairs of supermassive black holes, with one offset from the center of a galaxy, as telltale evidence of a previous galaxy merger," said James Condon, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. "Instead, we found this black hole fleeing from the larger galaxy and leaving a trail of debris behind it," he added.

"We've not seen anything like this before," Condon said.

The astronomers began their quest by using the VLBA to make very high resolution images of more than 1,200 galaxies, previously identified by large-scale sky surveys done with infrared and radio telescopes. Their VLBA observations showed that the supermassive black holes of nearly all these galaxies were at the centers of the galaxies.

However, one object, in a cluster of galaxies called ZwCl 8193, did not fit that pattern. Further studies showed that this object, called B3 1715+425, is a surrounded by a galaxy much smaller and fainter than would be expected. In addition, this object is speeding away from the core of a much larger galaxy, leaving a wake of ionized gas behind it.

The scientists concluded that B3 1715+425 is what has remained of a galaxy that passed through the larger galaxy and had most of its stars and gas stripped away by the encounter—a "nearly naked" supermassive black hole.

The speeding remnant, the scientists said, probably will lose more mass and cease forming new stars.

"In a billion years or so, it probably will be invisible," Condon said. That means, he pointed out, that there could be many more such objects left over from earlier galactic encounters that astronomers can't detect.

The scientists will keep looking, however. They're observing more objects, in a long-term project with the VLBA. Since their project is not time-critical, Condon explained, they use "filler time" when the telescope is not in use for other observations.

"The data we get from the VLBA is very high quality. We get the positions of the supermassive black holes to extremely good precision. Our limiting factor is the precision of the galaxy positions seen at other wavelengths that we use for comparison," Condon said. With new optical telescopes that will come on line in future years, such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), he said, they will then have improved images that can be compared with the VLBA images. They hope that this will allow them to discover more objects like B3 1714+425.

"And also maybe some of the binary supermassive black holes we originally sought," he said.

Condon worked with Jeremy Darling of the University of Colorado, Yuri Kovalev of the Astro Space Center of the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, and Leonid Petrov of the Astrogeo Center in Falls Church, Virginia. The scientists are reporting their findings in the Astrophysical Journal.

The VLBA, dedicated in 1993, now is part of the Long Baseline Observatory. It uses ten, 25-meter-diameter dish antennas distributed from Hawaii to St. Croix in the Caribbean. It is operated from the NRAO's Domenici Science Operations Center in Socorro, NM. All ten antennas work together as a single telescope with the greatest resolving power available to astronomy. This unique capability has produced landmark contributions to numerous scientific fields, ranging from Earth tectonics, climate research, and spacecraft navigation, to cosmology.


Explore further

Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Close galactic encounter leaves 'nearly naked' supermassive black hole (2016, November 2) retrieved 19 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-11-galactic-encounter-naked-supermassive-black.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.
2495 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

RNP
Nov 02, 2016
The paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...67v2.pdf

Nov 02, 2016
i predicted such a condition from as early as my first post in 2010, while the Huge Bang Fantasy was still indisputable, and merger maniacs still ruled uncontested:

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

And again shortly thereafter in 2012:

http://phys.org/n...arp.html

And recent news supports my predictions. Just say'in. (See my links hereunder:)

http://phys.org/n...ant.html

Nov 02, 2016
In a billion years its gravity will attract objects to it ,and any future encounters with small galaxies it will rob there perimeters too

Nov 02, 2016
And here is another embarrassing naked hole, albeit a bit smaller.

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

The bashful hole in this story has grown so large and disruptively active that it has blown away the naturally outwardly migrating stars, with the surrounding region only filled with new gas ejected therefrom that is so turbulent that new stars can no longer form.

http://phys.org/n...ays.html

Or maybe you prefer the contorted explanations of the merger maniacs?? Bendy?

Nov 02, 2016
Look, look, look......it really is a BH, you can see the black dot right dead in the middle of the picture........thank you, thank you, thank you Schneibo for sharing that pic with us albeit you wish to remain the anonymous donor of such important science.

Nooooo, you're kidding:

Artist's conception of how the "nearly naked" supermassive black hole originated. Credit: Bill Saxton


It's a drawing? I thought this was a science site? You mean to tell me this is an Artist's site? About now, WhydGyre must be happy as a little newborn lark to see so much precious artistry on his favorite site. Bill you should be ashamed of yourself trying to fool us like this.

We need a journalist here who has at least taken a Beginner's course in Thermodynamics during his time in Grad School to explain to the casual reader why this artistry is so important to the Beginner in Cosmology. Shavera.......you're up.


Nov 02, 2016
Artist's conception of how the "nearly naked" supermassive black hole originated. Credit: Bill Saxton


Hey Bill, the next time you do one of these drawings, would you please include a Hawking depiction of an "apparent Event Horizon"? Yeah, you remember that April 2016 news conference in which he discussed it? Oh, you missed it & that's the reason we don't see some kind of cyclone action occurring around that nice neat black orb you painted in there?

Well, anyway Bill, it is well known BHs cannot exist if there is no Event Horizon, so we need you to go back & redo your comic strip & show us the eye of this cosmic cyclone bearing down onto the surface of your little black orb as this finite stellar orb sucks everything within reach & obliterates it to eternal destruction at the infinitely dense singularity.

Nov 03, 2016
Hey Benni, next time you comment on a science article, make sure you don't forget to at least do the basic research to comprehend what you are commenting about. I know it's darn difficult and you struggle to understand, but there are many very knowledgeable people here who would be happy to try to explain it to you. It might be an uphill battle, but we will try our best if you do the same.

Nov 03, 2016
"The galaxies are part of a cluster of galaxies more than 2 billion light-years from Earth. The close encounter, millions of years ago..."

Or, you know, billions of years ago.

Nov 03, 2016
Hey Benni,I know it's darn difficult and you struggle to understand, but there are many very knowledgeable people here


..."knowledgeable people here"?...anyone "knowledgeable" in nuclear physics knows that INFINITE DENSITY cannot exist within the parameters of anything that commenced its existence as a FINITE MASS, to believe otherwise is PERPETUAL MOTION because believing otherwise requires a reverse application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW about which none of you "knowledgeable" asstrophysicists have the remotest comprehension.

who would be happy to try to explain it to you, but we will try our best if you do the same


OK, then start by applying the INVERSE SQUARE LAW for GRAVITY to explain the formation of INFINITE DENSITY at the SINGULARITY of a FINITE stellar mass. The fact that asstrophysics has never been able to do this is precisely the reason Hawking has labeled BH Event Horizon as "apparent". The PERPETUAL MOTION gig is a fun asstrophysics game.


RNP
Nov 03, 2016
@Benni
..."...anyone "knowledgeable" in nuclear physics knows that INFINITE DENSITY cannot exist within the parameters of anything that commenced its existence as a FINITE MASS, to believe otherwise is PERPETUAL MOTION because believing otherwise requires a reverse application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW about which none of you "knowledgeable" asstrophysicists have the remotest comprehension.

It is almost impossible to respond sensibly to your comments because they make little or no sense. However, to address three points;

Infinite density could arise from a finite mass contracting to zero volume. It is a matter of current scientific debate as to whether such a thing is physically possible. If you have any evidence to suggest it is not, then name it (N.B. I mean evidence, not just statements of opinion).

How on Earth does perpetual motion comes into it?

There is no such thing as a "reverse application of the INVERSE SQUARE". So what do you really mean THAT?

Nov 03, 2016
Infinite density could arise from a finite mass contracting to zero volume
Really? So what law of Physics can you quote for this? You have testable evidence to prove it?

It is a matter of current scientific debate as to whether such a thing is physically possible
Oh, it isn't about testable evidence in your make believe world of asstrophysics, it's solely about "debate" conveniently discarding the known laws of physics. I'll bet both you, like Shavera, didn't take a "beginner's" Thermodynamics until you went to Grad school.

If you have any evidence to suggest it is not, then name it (N.B. I mean evidence, not just statements of opinion)


.....but you NEVER want to discuss "evidence", or you would be conversing with me about application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW & applying it to the formation of gravity creating INFINITE DENSITY at the center of a mass dubbed Black Hole. It's evident you don't even know what the Inverse Square Law is do you?


RNP
Nov 03, 2016
@Benni
So what law of Physics can you quote for this? You have testable evidence to prove it?


It is not a law of physics, it is the definition of density (mass divided by volume, in case you did not know). Finite mass in zero volume is BY DEFINITION infinite density.

you would be conversing with me about application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW & applying it to the formation of gravity creating INFINITE DENSITY at the center of a .. Black Hole.


I have already pointed out that this is a matter is debate. The current consensus it that quantum effects will essentially halt the collapse, and stop an infinite density point forming. You preoccupation with this point of infinite density is therefore moot in relation to the formation of black holes. As to the inverse square law not being able to produce infinite density; see http://www.seas.h...ally.pdf

It's evident you don't even know what the Inverse Square Law is do you?

WRONG.

Nov 03, 2016
Finite mass in zero volume is BY DEFINITION infinite density
And you have testable evidence proving such a condition can exist?

You preoccupation with this point of infinite density is therefore moot in relation to the formation of black holes.
.......well then, I guess you are just so much smarter than the authors in WikiPedia where in the first paragraph titled "Singularity" they clearly state "infinite density" exists at the so-called "singularity":

"....the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."
.......I've put this up for you before & you did the same cough & gag routine of trying to say the Wiki author did not mean what he said & by implication neither do you. The fact of the matter is you don't know that the force of gravity at the center of any stellar mass is exactly zero, ISL.

Nov 03, 2016
@Benni the Clown
Let's do some math Benni. Be careful, it involves raising to the third power and division.
The radius of Sag A* is at most 44e6 km, that is 63 solar radii. Its mass is 4e6 solar masses. Ergo it's density is 4e6/63^3=16 times that of the Sun, that is 32 times that of water. No ordinary matter has such a density. This is only the present lower limit of the density. If we halve the upper limit on the radius, it goes up by a factor of 8.
How do you explain that, Benni the Clown?
Check the periodic table for yourself: http://www.ptable...sity/STP


Correction: the minimal density is 1.4*16=22.4 g/cm^3, so Sag A* has the density of the densest elements, Os and Ir.


So........your point being what? That you know how to Copy & Paste?


Nov 03, 2016
I have already pointed out that this is a matter is debate. The current consensus it that quantum effects will essentially halt the collapse, and stop an infinite density point forming


So, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!!! Why should anybody take you seriously?


Nov 03, 2016
"The galaxies are part of a cluster of galaxies more than 2 billion light-years from Earth. The close encounter, millions of years ago..."

Or, you know, billions of years ago.

LOL... Dr. Evil wrote this article?

Nov 03, 2016
..."knowledgeable people here"?...anyone "knowledgeable" in nuclear physics knows that INFINITE DENSITY cannot exist within the parameters of anything that commenced its existence as a FINITE MASS, to believe otherwise is PERPETUAL MOTION because believing otherwise requires a reverse application of the INVERSE SQUARE LAW about which none of you "knowledgeable" asstrophysicists have the remotest comprehension.

who would be happy to try to explain it to you, but we will try our best if you do the same


OK, then start by applying the INVERSE SQUARE LAW for GRAVITY to explain the formation of INFINITE DENSITY at the SINGULARITY of a FINITE stellar mass. The fact that asstrophysics has never been able to do this is precisely the reason Hawking has labeled BH Event Horizon as "apparent".

Benni, Why is it only you that interprets a quirk of math as a real thing...? Of course there is no "infinite gravity" or "infinite density". Only the mathematical illusion.

Nov 03, 2016
Benni, Why is it only you that interprets a quirk of math as a real thing...? Of course there is no "infinite gravity" or "infinite density". Only the mathematical illusion
......oh well Why'd you bring that up yet again? How many times must I repeat Copy & Pasting the WkiPedia section describing the Singularity of a BH? Look I'll do this just one more time & let's see if you get it:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.".....get it?


Nov 03, 2016
[......oh well Why'd you bring that up yet again? How many times must I repeat Copy & Pasting the WkiPedia section describing the Singularity of a BH? Look I'll do this just one more time & let's see if you get it:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.".....get it?

Please provide an exact page that you find this description on. You don't have to copy and paste anything. other than the link.

Nov 04, 2016
Of course there is no "infinite gravity" or "infinite density". Only the mathematical illusion.

Well at least the artist understands that BH's are nothing more than mathematical illusions...
Whyde, are you in fact an astrophysical illusionist?

RNP
Nov 04, 2016
@cantdrive
Of course there is no "infinite gravity" or "infinite density". Only the mathematical illusion.

Well at least the artist understands that BH's are nothing more than mathematical illusions...
Whyde, are you in fact an astrophysical illusionist?


Let me remind you AGAIN that the existence of black holes does NOT depend on whether the center goes to infinite density or not. In theory, any mass of high enough, while still finite, density can form a black hole.

Nov 04, 2016
Why'd you bring that up yet again? How many times must I repeat Copy & Pasting the WkiPedia section describing the Singularity of a BH? Look I'll do this just one more time & let's see if you get it:

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.".....get it?


provide an exact page that you find this description on. You don't have to copy and paste anything other than the link.
I've done that above, you just don't like reading about it.

Nov 04, 2016
Let me remind you AGAIN that the existence of black holes does NOT depend on whether the center goes to infinite density or not
....so you know more than the Author who wrote the following for WikiPedia:

"Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity
At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

Hey, Rguy,so, all you have is opinions!! No evidence, not even an explanation!! Why should anybody take you seriously?


RNP
Nov 04, 2016
@Benni
Concerning singularities. You are still failing to understand.You seem to be confusing the (albeit related) concepts of singularities and black holes.

It does NOT require the formation of a singularity in order to form a black hole. A black hole is formed when an object collapses to the point that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light at some radius (i.e. the formation of an event horizon). Whatever goes on inside the event horizon is immaterial from that moment on - a black hole exists. Also, I again note that, even among asstrophysicists [sic] that believe in black holes, it is a matter of debate whether a singularity is formed or not (i.e. Hawkings, a believer in black holes, thinks that singularities do NOT form). So, clearly your assertion that current consensus model requires a singularity is false.

Finally, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence if you want to convince anybody the prevailing theories are wrong.

RNP
Nov 04, 2016
Finally, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence if you want to convince anybody the prevailing theories are wrong.


It is YOUR responsibility to verify the accuracy of a theory YOU expect anyone to believe, not ours to explain why we don't believe something you can't actually prove.


So, you are saying that the observations reported in the literature that I (and others) provide links to, and that are used to construct the prevailing theory, do not constitute evidence.

Instead you expect people to be persuaded by the fact that, despite not being able to support the position, you "don't believe".

If you are hoping to convince anyone; DREAM ON!

RNP
Nov 04, 2016
@bschott
I have been over this with you several times,......


Yes, and you are still making the same embarassing mistakes because you refuse to listen to anything that people that know better than you have to say. So, that's enough. This is a waste of EVERYBODY'S time (most importantly, mine)!!!


Nov 04, 2016
It does NOT require the formation of a singularity in order to form a black hole. A black hole is formed when an object collapses to the point that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light at some radius


....and how do you know there is a gravity field so intense that it can prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velocity? You have a calculation handy that you can put up? It certainly isn't found in General Relativity among the Einstein Field Equations, or if you think it is then Copy & Paste it for all to see.

Look Rguy, I happen to know that the strength of a gravity field required to prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velocity is INFINITY. You don't know this because your comprehension of Special Relativity is so pitifully anemic.

Oh, the entertainment factor abounds.........watching you duck, dodge & weaving through so many contorted & convoluted explanations.


Nov 04, 2016
Benni
Prove your assertion that
the strength of a gravity field required to prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velocity is INFINITY

.
.......First Rguy, then me, my challenge went out first......let's just see how Rguy manages to copout on this one too.

Nov 04, 2016
If anyne wans to know where sub quantum kinetics tuxford brings up comes from here is an interesting tidbit..
. In Decoding the Message of the Pulsars, LaViolette shows that pulsars are distributed in the sky in a nonrandom fashion, often marking key galactic locations, and that their signals are of intelligent origin. Using extensive scientific data to corroborate his theory, he presents evidence of unusual geometric alignments among pulsars and intriguing pulse-period relationships. Equally compelling is the message LaViolette contends is being sent by these extraterrestrial beacons: a warning about a past galactic core explosion disaster that could recur in the near future. PAUL A. LaVIOLETTE, Ph.D., is president of the Starburst

Nov 04, 2016
That's right. An alien code in the pulsars which only he could decode. He also says the aliens transported him to another dimension or a dream world in the subconscious so they could award him a medal or award for figuring it out.

RNP
Nov 05, 2016

@Benni
....and how do you know there is a gravity field so intense that it can prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velociy? You have a calculation handy that you can put up? It certainly isn't found in General Relativity among the Einstein Fietld Equations......

...I happen to know that the strength of a gravity field required to prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velocity is INFINITY.


Wrong on ALL counts.

In fact, you appear to not even understand the issue. It is not whether the gravitational field can "prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velociy" (this actually makes NO sense).

The issue is whether a there is a radius at which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

Google the subject and you will find THOUSANDS of sites using Relativity to derive the radius of the event horizon. Notice that the gravitational field is at no point infinite. In other words, what you "happen to know" is, as usual, gibberish.

RNP
Nov 05, 2016
@Benni
Considering your recent posts, I think I see where you are going wrong.

You are thinking purely in Newtonian terms. But, when considering light emitted from a body of high mass, it is necessary to take reletavistic effects into account. I.e. General relativity. The important factor here is then gravitational time dilation. Indeed, GR provides an alternative definition of the event horizon such that it is the surface at which, to an external observer, the graviational time dilation goes to zero (Hence the apocryphal tale of someone falling into a BH seeming to freeze on the event horizon). If you assume GR holds inside the event horizon things become incredibly complex. The best summary I can find is the answer to the question asked here: http://physics.st...-horizon


Nov 05, 2016
@RNP
Considering your recent posts, I see where you are going wrong............you have zero conception of the Inverse Square Law & it's application for calculating the strength of gravitational attraction of a given mass.

Your next stop is to learn how to apply the Inverse Square Law to gravity as it is calculated in the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity. Until you learn how to do this, your theories about BHs will remain totally lost in the cyclonic swirl of accretion disks for which there is no EVIDENCE of existence.

So Rguy, next stop for you is a study of the Inverse Square Law, then come back & maybe you can have an intelligent discussion with me based in proven laws of physics. If you go to a search engine such a study should not be too hard, just type INVERSE SQUARE LAW & hundreds of sites will come up, pick one that best suits your level of education, then come back & report your progress.

Nov 05, 2016
Hi Phys1, Benni. :)

I note that Phys1 agrees with Benni on one substantive science point. It's good to see that there is a slow but sure resolving of differences when all concerned keep to the substantive science point for long enough. :)

Keep it up, both of you. Cheers. :)

PS: Maybe such meeting of minds can in future be accomplished without so much insult/barbs from whatever 'side', hey? It does my heart good to see less insults and more constructive dialogue, for the sake of science and humanity advancement if not for the people involved themselves. Good luck. :)

Nov 05, 2016
So Rguy, next stop for you is a study of the Inverse Square Law, then come back & maybe you can have an intelligent discussion with me based in proven laws of physics. If you go to a search engine such a study should not be too hard, just type INVERSE SQUARE LAW & hundreds of sites will come up, pick one that best suits your level of education, then come back & report your progress.


See Rguy, even the 1st Semester Physics guy made a credible stab it, let's see what you can do for a followup? Like perhaps you can tell us where on, or in, a stellar mass we can expect to locate the exact minimum & maximum points of the force of gravity and why? Do you think you could come up with the answer from application of the Inverse Square Law?

C'mon here Rguy don't disappoint us, Phys 1 is doing his best to clue you in so you don't get caught up in the usual conundrum of putting up some piece of meaningless tripe.

RNP
Nov 06, 2016
@Benni
study of the Inverse Square Law, then come back & maybe you can have an intelligent discussion with me based in proven laws of physics.

Regarding your latest spurious rant:

Anybody that reads your posts will see that you do not understand General Relativity. Your rigid adhesion to Newtownian modes of thought in a situation where Newtonain dynamics do not apply is testament to that.

Your suggestion that my posts are my own misinterpretation of GR is easily shown to be a LIE by looking at the references I have linked or a quick Google search. You should be ashamed of such dishonest behaviour.

Have the good sense to try and address my first point. I suggest you study an appropriate text book. Here is a list of recommendations: http://physics.st...lativity

You will find everything I have been saying in the pages of any of these. I would recommend Chapter 12 of Hartle as a starting point.

Nov 06, 2016
RNP/Phys1

Regarding your latest spurious rant:

I suggest you study an appropriate text book. Here is a list of recommendations: http://physics.st...lativity


......I only need the documents of Special & General Relativity, you're the one who needs the watered down versions from elsewhere because the Einstein authored documents are beyond your math skills.

So tell us without further obfuscation, at what location of any stellar mass is gravity maximum/minimum in accordance with calculation of the Inverse Square Law? For some reason you won't answer that question, except for coming up with every duck, dodge & weave contortion for not answering the question. It is calculable you know......or maybe you don't?


Nov 06, 2016
Your rigid adhesion to Newtownian modes of thought in a situation where Newtonain dynamics do not apply is testament to that.
......hey Mr Clown, you're the one who brought up Escape Velocity, not me. All I've been doing is challenging you you at the same level of physics that you bring up, then you punt again, always finding some lame excuse for not answering a specific question


RNP
Nov 07, 2016
@Benni
....at what location of any stellar mass is gravity maximum/minimum in accordance with calculation of the Inverse Square Law?


I will say it one last time. You CAN NOT understand the effects of gravity in the extreme conditions of a black hole by a simple Newtonian or Special Reletavistic analysis of the inverse square law. You need to learn General Relativity to get the real picture of what is going on.

Nov 07, 2016
@Benni

....at what location of any stellar mass is gravity maximum/minimum in accordance with calculation of the Inverse Square Law?


I will say it one last time. You CAN NOT understand the effects of gravity in the extreme conditions of a black hole by a simple Newtonian or Special Reletavistic analysis of the inverse square law. You need to learn General Relativity to get the real picture of what is going on.


........say it as many times as you want.

You're the one confronting a hurdle of trying to prove that the proven & well known science of the Inverse Square Law by which stellar mass forms can by some trick of Black Hole Math be recalculated to create a given mass in which the maximum force of gravitational attraction occurs at the CENTER of the mass & not at the SURFACE, a reverse process totally contrary to the concepts of gravity, not only as calculated in General Relativity, but by NASA scientists who launch rockets to Pluto & beyond.

RNP
Nov 07, 2016
@Benni
You're the one confronting a hurdle of trying to prove that the proven & well known science of the Inverse Square Law by which stellar mass forms can by some trick of Black Hole Math be recalculated to create a given mass in which the maximum force of gravitational attraction occurs at the CENTER of the mass & not at the SURFACE, a reverse process totally contrary to the concepts of gravity, not only as calculated in General Relativity, but by NASA scientists who launch rockets to Pluto & beyond.


Neither "Black Hole Math" nor I assume that "the maximum force of gravitational attraction occurs at the CENTER of the mass & not at the SURFACE". Where did you get that idea? Perhaps you are confused with the idea that the force is the same as it would be if all the mass were concentrated at the center. In any case, I do not see why should I have to justify something that exists only in your imagination.

Nov 07, 2016
Neither "Black Hole Math" nor I assume that "the maximum force of gravitational attraction occurs at the CENTER of the mass & not at the SURFACE"


...then you do not believe in the existence of BHs, because that's the crux of the theory, that the SINGULARITY is infinitely dense. Or maybe you've come up with a better definition of a BH than WikiPedia:

Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity
At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.


Nov 07, 2016
... [63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.".....get it?


provide an exact page that you find this description on. You don't have to copy and paste anything other than the link.
I've done that above, you just don't like reading about it.

There are numerous wiki articles on BH's. I wanna know the EXACT one you are referencing.

Nov 07, 2016
There are numerous wiki articles on BH's. I wanna know the EXACT one you are referencing.
......dufus artist, pick one & read about the SINGULARITY if you find it so hard reading: Main Article: Gravitational Singularty

Just because you're an artist, that doesn't qualify you for babysitting status inasmuch as you crave it anyway

Nov 07, 2016
@benjiTROLL
for starters, lets examine what you posted
Singularity
Main article:
so the keyword in that is "article"
not study

so you're arguing about the semantics written in an article that is attempting to explain a physics concept to the average layman without using to much technical jargon and peppered with a whole lot of metaphor and simile

more to the point, that article, in the first paragraph, also stated
the laws of normal space-time could not exist
by definition this means that we don't know for sure
it also means that our known laws of physics breaks down so, technically, it could mean a lot of different things

Just because you're an idiot trolling for attention, that doesn't qualify you for babysitting status inasmuch as you crave it anyway

RNP
Nov 08, 2016
@Benni
.......because that's the crux of the theory, that the SINGULARITY is infinitely dense. Or maybe you've come up with a better definition of a BH than WikiPedia:


You have not been paying attention to my posts, have you? I have repeatedly pointed out that the formation of a singularity at the center of a black hole, is a still matter of debate. The formation of a black hole does NOT depend on the formation of the singularity, it depends only on the formation of an event horizon. Here is a link that proves my point:

https://www.newsc...k-holes/

Are you going to read it?

Nov 14, 2016
Did you guys notice? PhysOrg removed my post postulating that JDark is actually DOD counter-intelligence. I was not rude, just informing. So why the deletion? I just talked about a classified physics re. electro-gravitics that the DoD wants to keep under wraps. Guess I hit too close to home?

The NSA is watching. Watch this post disappear as well.

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