Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding?

  1. #1 Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I say that it does, because our visible universe could not support the life cycle of even a single black hole.

    You might ask why does a black hole have to have a life cycle and if it does why does it have to change our understanding of the universe?

    Well to start with I think all things in the universe exist within the laws of nature and that includes black holes. All things that make our universe a very active dynamic place have life cycles. For example all stars have a life cycle, they're born, they burn for a period of time then they die. Galaxies have life cycles, a supermassive black hole receives an infusion of star fuel (Hydrogen) flares into a quasar for some period of time then star formation takes place rapidly. Star formation will continue taking place until all the star fuel has been depleted then the galaxy will die. However, that supermassive black hole that was the galaxy is now going about it's business a little fatter than it was before and doing just fine in the dark. You might ask what part of a supermassive black hole becoming a lit up galaxy of stars has to do with nature and life cycles.

    Black holes are born because of stars, without stars there would be no new black holes. I think our visible universe is but a very small subset of the real universe which is dependent on the life cycles of black holes and that what I call our visible universe in nothing more than a black hole nursery.

    I am saying our visible universe is the result of a black hole death or ending which recycled all it's mass in the form of star fuel (Hydrogen) and is the direct reason we have hundreds of billions of lit up galaxies expanding outward from each other.

    That is how I see the life cycle of a black hole and I welcome all comments for or against this theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I say that it does, because our visible universe could not support the life cycle of even a single black hole.

    You might ask why does a black hole have to have a life cycle and if it does why does it have to change our understanding of the universe?

    Well to start with I think all things in the universe exist within the laws of nature and that includes black holes. All things that make our universe a very active dynamic place have life cycles. For example all stars have a life cycle, they're born, they burn for a period of time then they die. Galaxies have life cycles, a supermassive black hole receives an infusion of star fuel (Hydrogen) flares into a quasar for some period of time then star formation takes place rapidly. Star formation will continue taking place until all the star fuel has been depleted then the galaxy will die. However, that supermassive black hole that was the galaxy is now going about it's business a little fatter than it was before and doing just fine in the dark. You might ask what part of a supermassive black hole becoming a lit up galaxy of stars has to do with nature and life cycles.

    Black holes are born because of stars, without stars there would be no new black holes. I think our visible universe is but a very small subset of the real universe which is dependent on the life cycles of black holes and that what I call our visible universe in nothing more than a black hole nursery.

    I am saying our visible universe is the result of a black hole death or ending which recycled all it's mass in the form of star fuel (Hydrogen) and is the direct reason we have hundreds of billions of lit up galaxies expanding outward from each other.

    That is how I see the life cycle of a black hole and I welcome all comments for or against this theory.
    This is cute, but it ignores the physics of black holes. This is not scirnce. It is pseudoscience, and belongs in the Pseudoscience forum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is cute, but it ignores the physics of black holes. This is not scirnce. It is pseudoscience, and belongs in the Pseudoscience forum.
    Is that right? You know all about the physics of black holes. Exactly what are you complaining about? You don't believe black holes have a life cycle or maybe you object to the idea that a black hole might some how reach a critical mass and recycle itself. It's a concept the same as the standard big bang model of our universe is. Do you also object to that as pseudoscience? I find it pretty hard to swallow. Next perhaps you object to the idea that a galaxy was a black hole before it was a galaxy. I find it really hard to believe that galaxies as they are now could have congealed out of big bang soup. It's much easier to believe they already existed as black holes before the so called big bang. There is observations that show galaxies that contain black hole cores of over a billion solar masses that were in existence only about one billion years after the big bang. The scientists could not explain how such large black holes could possibly have formed so soon after the big bang. The fact is my solution make a great deal more sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Okay, so you believe that a black hole somehow “recycles” its mass into a galaxy or a new universe. This is an idea, not a theory. You must first describe how the mechanism of your idea overcomes gravity so that the energy of the BH gets out of the event horizon. Without this, you don’t really have a “solution”.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Okay, so you believe that a black hole somehow “recycles” its mass into a galaxy or a new universe. This is an idea, not a theory. You must first describe how the mechanism of your idea overcomes gravity so that the energy of the BH gets out of the event horizon. Without this, you don’t really have a “solution”.
    First can you describe the current big bang theory of our universe and tell me how that happened. Never mind I'll do it.

    Before the big bang there was nothing, no space, no time, just a big infinite nothing, then out of nothing a singularity appeared and it expanded from a point smaller than an atom. As it expanded and cooled there became some areas of higher gravity that eventually condensed into all the galaxies we see today.

    Is there anything about that, that you can believe in? If so please tell me why. In any event there are some believers that think the initial expansion happened at faster than the speed of light. I do think there could be some speed greater than the speed of light that would allow the black hole to expand it's mass once it destabilized for whatever reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is cute, but it ignores the physics of black holes. This is not scirnce. It is pseudoscience, and belongs in the Pseudoscience forum.
    Is that right? You know all about the physics of black holes. Exactly what are you complaining about? You don't believe black holes have a life cycle or maybe you object to the idea that a black hole might some how reach a critical mass and recycle itself. It's a concept the same as the standard big bang model of our universe is. Do you also object to that as pseudoscience? I find it pretty hard to swallow. Next perhaps you object to the idea that a galaxy was a black hole before it was a galaxy. I find it really hard to believe that galaxies as they are now could have congealed out of big bang soup. It's much easier to believe they already existed as black holes before the so called big bang. There is observations that show galaxies that contain black hole cores of over a billion solar masses that were in existence only about one billion years after the big bang. The scientists could not explain how such large black holes could possibly have formed so soon after the big bang. The fact is my solution make a great deal more sense.
    What you "believe" is irrelevant. I know people who believe in Santa Claus and the promises of politicians.

    What counts is what has been demonstrated to be valid physics. Your beliefs are contradicted by basic physics.

    In brief, you have the right to your delusions, but don't confuse them with science. While your "solution" makes a great deal of sense to you, that is not a strong recommendation. Your "solution" is nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    What you "believe" is irrelevant. I know people who believe in Santa Claus and the promises of politicians.

    What counts is what has been demonstrated to be valid physics. Your beliefs are contradicted by basic physics.

    In brief, you have the right to your delusions, but don't confuse them with science. While your "solution" makes a great deal of sense to you, that is not a strong recommendation. Your "solution" is nonsense.
    I guess the big question is what do you believe? What valid and basic physics are you talking about? What is your current belief about the current big bang model of our universe? You keep attacking me without offering any real substance or any idea of where you are coming from.

    When I look at the current big bang model, I don't like anything about it and if there's any good science there please point it out. Can you do that?

    The test of any model is how well it can explain the reality of the observations we are able to make with our instrumentation, and in that sense the current big bang model is a total failure. Have you got something better in mind, if so please share with the rest of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

    When I look at the current big bang model, I don't like anything about it and if there's any good science there please point it out. Can you do that?
    If you take the observations that the universe is expanding and that there is a minimal amount of mass in it, consistent with observation, one can then apply general relativity to conclude that the universe was originally in an extremely compact form -- the big bang. This was done by Hawking and Penrose. For more detail read The large-scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    "Beliefs" are irrelevant. Science trumps beliefs.

    What you don't like doesn't matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If you take the observations that the universe is expanding and that there is a minimal amount of mass in it, consistent with observation, one can then apply general relativity to conclude that the universe was originally in an extremely compact form -- the big bang. This was done by Hawking and Penrose. For more detail read The large-scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    "Beliefs" are irrelevant. Science trumps beliefs.

    What you don't like doesn't matter.
    Compact form. Now that's really open to interpretation, don't you think? Let's compare interpretations.

    Singularity from nothing expands and congeals into our known universe or a Behemoth massive black hole (BMBH) with many hundreds of billions of supermassive black holes in an elliptical halo around it comprising maybe 2 to 3 billion light years across. As implausible as that may sound to you, to me it sure beats the alternative. Now let us consider what happens when and if the (BMBH) destabilizes into a big bang. The expansion will envelope and pass all the (SMBH)'s in current orbit around the (BMBH). Even without a faster than light expansion everyone of those (SMBH)'s will capture a great deal of star fuel (Hydrogen) within a billion and a half years. Now a SMBH already being fairly old would have a considerable amount of dark matter in orbit around it. I submit to you that this would become the perfect environment for star formation to take place. Everyone of the SMBH's would flare into a Quasar for a period of time then star formation would happen rapidly. At this point all those SMBH's not having a BMBH to be in orbit around will also be picking up some additional outward momentum from the expanding BB wind. That sounds like a good start to our expanding universe does it not?

    Let me anticipate your next question. Why is the expansion accelerating? If we were willing to consider at least one BMBH with 100's of billions of SMBH's in orbit around it, it stands to reason that there's a lot more of them completely surrounding our now expanding visible universe. That's a lot of gravity that's completely surrounding our visible universe. How plausible is it now to believe that's enough gravity to balance the dark energy books, and it is positioned in the right place to offer a gravity assist to the all ready expanding visible universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Lance, are you just trolling?
    I'll bet that you didn't anticipate that question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If you take the observations that the universe is expanding and that there is a minimal amount of mass in it, consistent with observation, one can then apply general relativity to conclude that the universe was originally in an extremely compact form -- the big bang. This was done by Hawking and Penrose. For more detail read The large-scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    "Beliefs" are irrelevant. Science trumps beliefs.

    What you don't like doesn't matter.
    Compact form. Now that's really open to interpretation, don't you think? Let's compare interpretations.

    Singularity from nothing expands and congeals into our known universe or a Behemoth massive black hole (BMBH) with many hundreds of billions of supermassive black holes in an elliptical halo around it comprising maybe 2 to 3 billion light years across. As implausible as that may sound to you, to me it sure beats the alternative. Now let us consider what happens when and if the (BMBH) destabilizes into a big bang. The expansion will envelope and pass all the (SMBH)'s in current orbit around the (BMBH). Even without a faster than light expansion everyone of those (SMBH)'s will capture a great deal of star fuel (Hydrogen) within a billion and a half years. Now a SMBH already being fairly old would have a considerable amount of dark matter in orbit around it. I submit to you that this would become the perfect environment for star formation to take place. Everyone of the SMBH's would flare into a Quasar for a period of time then star formation would happen rapidly. At this point all those SMBH's not having a BMBH to be in orbit around will also be picking up some additional outward momentum from the expanding BB wind. That sounds like a good start to our expanding universe does it not?

    Let me anticipate your next question. Why is the expansion accelerating? If we were willing to consider at least one BMBH with 100's of billions of SMBH's in orbit around it, it stands to reason that there's a lot more of them completely surrounding our now expanding visible universe. That's a lot of gravity that's completely surrounding our visible universe. How plausible is it now to believe that's enough gravity to balance the dark energy books, and it is positioned in the right place to offer a gravity assist to the all ready expanding visible universe.
    I give you science.

    You give me gibberish.

    Are you a troll or an idiot ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Lance, are you just trolling?
    I'll bet that you didn't anticipate that question.
    Yes I did. I've put many years of thinking into this model I've been presenting. I have a complete write up. It's about 20 pages, a bit long for this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Lance, are you just trolling?
    I'll bet that you didn't anticipate that question.
    Yes I did. I've put many years of thinking into this model I've been presenting. I have a complete write up. It's about 20 pages, a bit long for this forum.
    You have presented no model, only word salad.

    If you have a model let's see the physics with all relevant mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I give you science.

    You give me gibberish.

    Are you a troll or an idiot ?
    Being ridiculed puts me in pretty good company, and you haven't given me nothing but crap. You hide behind an anonymous front completely unwilling share your beliefs. I haven't heard any science from you and now I'm starting to wonder if I ever will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    You hide behind an anonymous front completely unwilling share your beliefs. I haven't heard any science from you and now I'm starting to wonder if I ever will.
    Then you need to have your hearing checked.

    Go read the reference that I provided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    You hide behind an anonymous front completely unwilling share your beliefs. I haven't heard any science from you and now I'm starting to wonder if I ever will.
    Then you need to have your hearing checked.

    Go read the reference that I provided.
    Damn, and I didn't think you had a sense of humor. While browsing for some info on your recommendation, I ran across the following comment:

    Hawking co-wrote the book with Ellis, while a post doc at Cambridge University. In his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, he derides The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime as "highly technical and quite unreadable" and advises readers to not seek it out.

    I do have a lot of respect for Hawking and his advice sounds good to me. However, I have to wonder about your real reasons for recommending it. Maybe you got stuck reading it in your past and wanted to pass that bit of misfortune on to others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    This might be a good point to have a discussion about the following observation:

    Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...dark_flow.html


    I have to say the standard BB model does not account for this observation in any way, except as another dark unknown. How many more dark unknowns are we going to have before somebody says maybe we need to rethink the universe?

    My black hole model provides a very easy to understand explanation. When many galaxies and galaxy clusters are moving in an unexpected way, there must be a gravity source that supports it. Earlier in this thread I did talk about the concept of Behemoth massive black holes ( to be defined as black holes that have millions, billions and maybe trillions of supermassive black holes in orbit around it). I define a galaxy as a supermassive black hole that has been illuminated with billions of stars. Basically all supermassive black holes act the same weather they have stars or not. So as our visible universe has been expanding great numbers of our galaxies have been captured into the orbit of a behemoth black hole that is just at the right distance from us that makes it detectable only through it's gravitational affect.

    I am quite confident that the next generation of super telescopes will confirm what I have just said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Lance - I get that the current inflationary model seems strange, and is hard to accept. I also get that there may be better ideas out there which are simply awaiting further research and evidence. I'm fairly confident that nobody here would disagree with those points.

    Where you're running into resistance is in your blind insistence, and the fact that when your specific questions are answered, you don't seem to fully grasp the relevance of the answers, nor how those answers defeat some of the points you are making... and it gets worse when you lob a bunch of personal comments at others right behind that misunderstanding.

    Like I said, it's (BBT) a strange model, and could very well be shifted as we learn more. Everyone is okay with that, so seriously... chillax. I might encourage you to work now to fill some gaps in your own knowledge, to ask specific questions (questions not loaded with invective and emotional baggage), and explore the responses provided to you by those incredibly well versed in the subject matter (like Dr.Rocket) more closely. People are perfectly willing to help teach and discuss with a curious mind, but not a bitter angry one.


    In the meantime, here is one of the best sites I've found to explore these ideas about cosmology, and it's accessible even to those who have no formal training or background with the subject matter. The "tale of two big bangs" and "avoiding the big bang" articles are especially good, but all deserve a close look to someone who is so obviously curious like yourself.


    Grab a warm beverage, find a quiet place to sit, go here, and read for a while --> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/cosmology



    Please note, I say the above in the spirit of kindness, and with an appreciation for how much you want to find better answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Lance - I get that the current inflationary model seems strange, and is hard to accept. I also get that there may be better ideas out there which are simply awaiting further research and evidence. I'm fairly confident that nobody here would disagree with those points.

    Where you're running into resistance is in your blind insistence, and the fact that when your specific questions are answered, you don't seem to fully grasp the relevance of the answers, nor how those answers defeat some of the points you are making... and it gets worse when you lob a bunch of personal comments at others right behind that misunderstanding.

    Like I said, it's (BBT) a strange model, and could very well be shifted as we learn more. Everyone is okay with that, so seriously... chillax. I might encourage you to work now to fill some gaps in your own knowledge, to ask specific questions (questions not loaded with invective and emotional baggage), and explore the responses provided to you by those incredibly well versed in the subject matter (like Dr.Rocket) more closely. People are perfectly willing to help teach and discuss with a curious mind, but not a bitter angry one.


    In the meantime, here is one of the best sites I've found to explore these ideas about cosmology, and it's accessible even to those who have no formal training or background with the subject matter. The "tale of two big bangs" and "avoiding the big bang" articles are especially good, but all deserve a close look to someone who is so obviously curious like yourself.


    Grab a warm beverage, find a quiet place to sit, go here, and read for a while --> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/cosmology



    Please note, I say the above in the spirit of kindness, and with an appreciation for how much you want to find better answers.
    I appreciate your comments and will check your site out. You are right about my being curious and I do like good solid proof as much as anybody else. However so much of what's been observed can't be explained by the current BB model. Also many of the observations are open to interpretation. If the model is wrong then you can't expect the interpretations to be very accurate either.

    I'm not trying to say the black hole model is perfect, but many of the concepts I'm putting forth do help explain many observations in a way that makes common sense. I have no doubt that Dr. Rocket knows more than I do, but his conversation with me hasn't been very informative. For instance I've just posted a link to an article about the dark flow and provided a reasonable explanation based on my black hole model. I am willing to listen to any other explanation, but comments like word salad and recommendations to go read a 360 page unreadable book are not very helpful.

    Also, I hope you don't mind if I pursue this thread from my current point of view. I am not trying to make anybody believe my ideas and concepts are anything but my own. I do know there are reasons why the current BB theory is still the most accepted, but I also know even those who still think it's the front runner have problems with it. There are other observations I plan to post with my explanation and I will welcome any other explanations. In the past the popularity of a belief wasn't a very good way to establish the truth of it. I don't see any reason to believe much has changed in that respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    If the model is wrong then you can't expect the interpretations to be very accurate either.
    Just one comment. The model is not "wrong," it just has limitations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Does a black hole life cycle change our understanding? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I do have a lot of respect for Hawking and his advice sounds good to me. However, I have to wonder about your real reasons for recommending it. Maybe you got stuck reading it in your past and wanted to pass that bit of misfortune on to others.
    It is the standard reference in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    If the model is wrong then you can't expect the interpretations to be very accurate either.
    Just one comment. The model is not "wrong," it just has limitations.
    Then those limitations need to be addressed and fixed. While I agree that there are limitations I'd bet we might have some disagreements about what they might be. But then I sometimes like disagreements and find the stimulation can be something to look forward to, or not.

    Not to long ago I believe DrRocket made a statement about gravity having an effect on the wave length of light. That was news to me and I would be interested in knowing more about that especially in the area of how that might affect the red shift measurements of distant galaxies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Not to long ago I believe DrRocket made a statement about gravity having an effect on the wave length of light. That was news to me and I would be interested in knowing more about that especially in the area of how that might affect the red shift measurements of distant galaxies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift

    It would not affect cosmological redshift unless there were a gravitational gtadient between us and the galaxy in question. The frequency changes, red shifts as a photon climbs out of a gravitational well and blue shifts as it goes down a gravitational gradient, so things generally cancel out over large distances. This effect has been considered by cosmologists -- I saw something in a paper on Arxiv but I don't recall the precisebcitation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Not to long ago I believe DrRocket made a statement about gravity having an effect on the wave length of light. That was news to me and I would be interested in knowing more about that especially in the area of how that might affect the red shift measurements of distant galaxies.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift

    It would not affect cosmological redshift unless there were a gravitational gtadient between us and the galaxy in question. The frequency changes, red shifts as a photon climbs out of a gravitational well and blue shifts as it goes down a gravitational gradient, so things generally cancel out over large distances. This effect has been considered by cosmologists -- I saw something in a paper on Arxiv but I don't recall the precisebcitation.
    Thanks,,,, Quick off topic question. Is there anything you can think of that Wikipedia doesn't have something to say about it?

    I've typed some pretty off the wall things into the search engine and I've never not seen a Wikipedia response to it. Well maybe a long time ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Thanks,,,, Quick off topic question. Is there anything you can think of that Wikipedia doesn't have something to say about it?

    I've typed some pretty off the wall things into the search engine and I've never not seen a Wikipedia response to it. Well maybe a long time ago.
    Nothing that I can think of.

    I find it useful, but only when I am fairly comfortable with the abject matter and can check the accuracy. It is not always reliable, though the mathematics and physics is usually pretty good. though there can be problems with the details. The heart of the difficulty is that there is no review process and anyone can edit the content. There some topics, such as those that pique the interest of "Electric Universe" proponents that are badly distorted. Some of the stuff relating to defense and aerospace technology is just wrong.

    I would be skeptical about "off the wall" topics unless I already knew a lot about them.

    A better source, but not so broadly encyclopedic is scholarpedia. Articles in scholarpedia are written by invitation only, and the authors are real world-class experts.

    I trust scholarpedia. I also trust good textbooks, by established authors -- people that I km ow personally or by reputation. There is a reason that the classic texts are classic. Most importantly, with a textbook you can take the time to follow the derivations and verify that they are correct -- or pinpoint the errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Thanks,,,, Quick off topic question. Is there anything you can think of that Wikipedia doesn't have something to say about it?

    I've typed some pretty off the wall things into the search engine and I've never not seen a Wikipedia response to it. Well maybe a long time ago.
    Nothing that I can think of.

    I find it useful, but only when I am fairly comfortable with the abject matter and can check the accuracy. It is not always reliable, though the mathematics and physics is usually pretty good. though there can be problems with the details. The heart of the difficulty is that there is no review process and anyone can edit the content. There some topics, such as those that pique the interest of "Electric Universe" proponents that are badly distorted. Some of the stuff relating to defense and aerospace technology is just wrong.

    I would be skeptical about "off the wall" topics unless I already knew a lot about them.

    A better source, but not so broadly encyclopedic is scholarpedia. Articles in scholarpedia are written by invitation only, and the authors are real world-class experts.

    I trust scholarpedia. I also trust good textbooks, by established authors -- people that I km ow personally or by reputation. There is a reason that the classic texts are classic. Most importantly, with a textbook you can take the time to follow the derivations and verify that they are correct -- or pinpoint the errors.
    Scholarpedia sounds like a good resource, I wonder why it doesn't come up in a more noticable way when the search engines are used. I can emagine that it is more topic selective, however I don't ever remember seeing come up on any search, but that can probably be explaned by the fact that I never looked for it. I will look for it from now on. One thing about Wikipedia I like is the format of subject, dicussion and history tabs. Also, there are generally links provided that always makes it a good starting point in any research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Scholarpedia sounds like a good resource, I wonder why it doesn't come up in a more noticable way when the search engines are used. I can emagine that it is more topic selective, however I don't ever remember seeing come up on any search, but that can probably be explaned by the fact that I never looked for it. I will look for it from now on. One thing about Wikipedia I like is the format of subject, dicussion and history tabs. Also, there are generally links provided that always makes it a good starting point in any research.
    Scholarpedia is more limited in topics and less popuar. I don't think it is given much priority by commercial search engines.

    The citations to the literature are probably the most valuable aspect of most Wiki articles. Always a good place to start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Precocious Supermassive Black Holes Challenge Theories

    http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/j1306/

    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    First Dark Matter Galaxy Discovered

    http://www.universetoday.com/10294/f...xy-discovered/

    I would say this must be a supermassive black hole without any stars. While I can't know for sure what this really is, I could hazard a guess that for some reason it did not receive a large enough infusion of Hydrogen for star formation to take place. But if indeed this is a supermassive black hole without stars. How could it have ever formed within the current big bang theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    Personal opinions are really first rate for selecting fabric coverings for furniture, or accessories for evening wear. They don't have much relevance in cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    So far as anyone now knows ther is no "before" the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    First Dark Matter Galaxy Discovered

    http://www.universetoday.com/10294/f...xy-discovered/

    I would say this must be a supermassive black hole without any stars. While I can't know for sure what this really is, I could hazard a guess that for some reason it did not receive a large enough infusion of Hydrogen for star formation to take place. But if indeed this is a supermassive black hole without stars. How could it have ever formed within the current big bang theory?
    You seem to have a large number of "beliefs" unsupported by and largely contradicted by science.

    Black holes in regions devoid of stars would be problematic, as that would the question as to how they formed. Also even a supermassive black star is many orders of magnitude smaller than a galaxy.

    You need to do some reading and get a handle on basic physics. knowledge and logic trump beliefs every time.

    Have you ever taken a serious physics course ? That would be a good place to start. You might start with the Berkeley videos of the class "Physics for Future Presidents". It is very good, and not demanding in teerms of mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    Personal opinions are really first rate for selecting fabric coverings for furniture, or accessories for evening wear. They don't have much relevance in cosmology.
    That's very true, And I very much would like to see explanations that could be more believable than those provided. I do understand that they weren't provided with any high degree of confidence and that does provide room for others to make their own speculations on the subject and whether you agree with me or not, it must be clear to you I find much that is objectionable with the current standard BB model of our universe. I don't have any problems with bucking the mainstream consensus. I do have a very good imagination and I like to exercise it and although I sometimes get stuck with foot in mouth I usually recover with my ego still intact. In any event I'd rather get stuck with foot in mouth than quietly sit in a corner and watch life go by. Also pushing on mainstream theories can be quite enjoyable and sometimes good things happen because of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    First Dark Matter Galaxy Discovered

    http://www.universetoday.com/10294/f...xy-discovered/

    I would say this must be a supermassive black hole without any stars. While I can't know for sure what this really is, I could hazard a guess that for some reason it did not receive a large enough infusion of Hydrogen for star formation to take place. But if indeed this is a supermassive black hole without stars. How could it have ever formed within the current big bang theory?
    Reasons why this doesn't work:

    1. It was the cloud of hydrogen that was detected, and this mass of hydrogen is about equal to that of a galaxy in of itself, so there is no lack of Hydrogen. It is hard to see how a BH could form without stars also forming.

    2. The rotation curve would be different. One problem I see with this article is that it only mentions the amount of extra mass needed and not the distribution.

    Dark matter would be distributed more or less evenly throughout the cloud. This results in a different rotation curve than you would get if the extra mass was concentrated at the center as it would be if for a BH. Since the article states that they ruled out other causes, it stands to reason that the rotation curve ruled out a large central mass.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    Personal opinions are really first rate for selecting fabric coverings for furniture, or accessories for evening wear. They don't have much relevance in cosmology.
    That's very true, And I very much would like to see explanations that could be more believable than those provided. I do understand that they weren't provided with any high degree of confidence and that does provide room for others to make their own speculations on the subject and whether you agree with me or not, it must be clear to you I find much that is objectionable with the current standard BB model of our universe. I don't have any problems with bucking the mainstream consensus. I do have a very good imagination and I like to exercise it and although I sometimes get stuck with foot in mouth I usually recover with my ego still intact. In any event I'd rather get stuck with foot in mouth than quietly sit in a corner and watch life go by. Also pushing on mainstream theories can be quite enjoyable and sometimes good things happen because of it.
    Pushing on mainstream ideas is part of good research. But before you push you first neeed to understand those theories and know where it is is worthwhile to push. You are pushing on the solid parts.

    Knowing where you can push without looking foolish takes some study. Study first, push second. You have a LOT of studying to do before you are ready to push.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    First Dark Matter Galaxy Discovered

    http://www.universetoday.com/10294/f...xy-discovered/

    I would say this must be a supermassive black hole without any stars. While I can't know for sure what this really is, I could hazard a guess that for some reason it did not receive a large enough infusion of Hydrogen for star formation to take place. But if indeed this is a supermassive black hole without stars. How could it have ever formed within the current big bang theory?
    Relying on old articles from an internet site is not a good idea. Instead do a little research and go to the source. http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0502.1312
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Reasons why this doesn't work:

    1. It was the cloud of hydrogen that was detected, and this mass of hydrogen is about equal to that of a galaxy in of itself, so there is no lack of Hydrogen. It is hard to see how a BH could form without stars also forming.

    2. The rotation curve would be different. One problem I see with this article is that it only mentions the amount of extra mass needed and not the distribution.

    Dark matter would be distributed more or less evenly throughout the cloud. This results in a different rotation curve than you would get if the extra mass was concentrated at the center as it would be if for a BH. Since the article states that they ruled out other causes, it stands to reason that the rotation curve ruled out a large central mass.
    That's the kind of response I like. I read 3 different versions of that same article and not one of them explained it like you did. I can say for sure that had you written that article I would never have used it as one of my examples.

    To all of you that have responded in this thread I acknowledge that you are all more knowledgeable than myself. However I sense when it comes to imagination I have you all beat and sometimes putting knowledge, brain power and imagination together can provide good results. Even if those possible good results might only happen 1 out 100 or more times, that could make it all worth while. Regardless to anything I have said I am somewhat content waiting on the next generation instrumentation (Very Big Telescopes) to come online and put many of the questions to rest and open up new questions as is always the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    It's not a competition. We're all in this together, each bringing different strengths and weaknesses with us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It's not a competition. We're all in this together, each bringing different strengths and weaknesses with us.
    One of your strong points is over in the religion and Science sub-forum. I really enjoyed your thread on The Universe from Nothing. I've never seen so many long winded comments over nothing in my life (pun intended). When it comes to the subject of religion your one of the few people I know that can say how I really feel better than I can myself, and on that subject I wish I could have met somebody like you 30 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Thanks, Lance. It's taken me years and practice to "find my voice" on that topic. The blackhole and cosmology stuff is more from personal interest. I've just picked up books and read and asked questions of those more informed than myself. If you hang out with people who are smarter than you, you can't help but to learn more and improve yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Thanks, Lance. It's taken me years and practice to "find my voice" on that topic. The blackhole and cosmology stuff is more from personal interest. I've just picked up books and read and asked questions of those more informed than myself. If you hang out with people who are smarter than you, you can't help but to learn more and improve yourself.
    I do believe one can never be to old to learn. That may not be true for reading books, sometimes the eyes just aren't up to it. But I will say this with a great deal of heart felt enthusiasm, thank the good fortune of living in a time when we can get old with a computer and the Internet. Can't imagine what I would do without them. As much as the subject of cosmology is an interest of mine this forum has lots of sub-forums that I think I'll start looking through in search of that perfect topic or who knows maybe I'll come up with it myself either way I should learn much and maybe I'll help others learn a little too. Also It's hard not to be aware of the entertainment value in all this higher learning. If it isn't fun, it's not worth doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Okay, so you believe that a black hole somehow “recycles” its mass into a galaxy or a new universe. This is an idea, not a theory. You must first describe how the mechanism of your idea overcomes gravity so that the energy of the BH gets out of the event horizon. Without this, you don’t really have a “solution”.
    Ignoring the nonsense about singularities (even Hawking stop believing in them years ago), you have a ball of fundamental particles inside an SMBH spinning at almost light speed. Ever more mass is added and at some point, even the fundamental particles are crushed to strings or whatever which are too small a size for gravity to enact over. The black hole literally vanishes, scattering these building blocks of matter all over nearby space in a massive explosion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    So far as anyone now knows ther is no "before" the big bang.
    Then you are claiming god did it?

    For a big bang to happen you need a source of material and energy. You also need a "space" for it to happen in. You then have to explain how the material and energy got from A to B.

    And that is before starting on all the problems associated with the BB itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Personal opinions are really first rate for selecting fabric coverings for furniture, or accessories for evening wear. They don't have much relevance in cosmology.
    That's it. You stick to parroting what is in text books and steer clear of anything original.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    We have an 18 billion solar mass black hole, voids upto a billion light years across and massive walls of galaxies in what is supposedly a smooth universe.

    With the big bang idea you have all basic particles moving away from each other without bias. There is nothing to cause them to attract to each other than gravity and if you factor that in, the lot promptly collapses into a black hole again since it is trillions of times the necessary density to form one.

    It makes more sense that it started over a massive area, like a wild fire spreading from a central point, but there never was a magic black hole aka a singularity, just the building blocks of conventional matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    So far as anyone now knows ther is no "before" the big bang.
    Then you are claiming god did it?

    For a big bang to happen you need a source of material and energy. You also need a "space" for it to happen in. You then have to explain how the material and energy got from A to B.

    And that is before starting on all the problems associated with the BB itself.
    rubbish

    The big bamg model is based on general relativity. In that model there is no notion of either time or space except subsequent to the big bang. Hence no "before".

    In short everything that you have said is completely contrary to mainstream cosmology models.

    You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.

    Try reading a book. You might try Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peeblws. If that is too difficult try A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The big bamg model is based on general relativity. In that model there is no notion of either time or space except subsequent to the big bang. Hence no "before".

    In short everything that you have said is completely contrary to mainstream cosmology models.

    You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.

    Try reading a book. You might try Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peeblws. If that is too difficult try A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
    The big bang IDEA is based on one interpretation of a few effects and has needed endless fudges to keep it going.

    If there is no time before a big bang, how does it happen?

    If the material and energy came from somewhere else, how did it happen and why did it happen? What was here before it happened, that had no time and no space?

    Let's have a look at mainstream cosmology on the BB:

    Branes = no evidence.
    Other universes =- no evidence.
    More dimensions that the 3 that we see = no evidence.
    Singularities = no evidence.
    Ultimate temperature = no evidence.
    Inflation = no evidence.
    Changed to expansion = no evidence.
    The fact that it could resist gravity when a zillion times that necessary to create a black hole = no evidence.
    Dark energy = no evidence.

    I could go on but it seems that what you have here is a religion. That is not science as I know it.

    Do you have any idea what you are parroting?

    I tried Hawkings Brief History of Time when it came out. Boring and simplistic, on a level with Hubbard's Dianetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I personally don't believe any billion plus solar mass black hole could have formed within a billion years of the big bang. I don't like or agree with any of the possible explanations given. I find it very much easier to believe these black holes were around before any big bang took place.
    Personal opinions are really first rate for selecting fabric coverings for furniture, or accessories for evening wear. They don't have much relevance in cosmology.
    That's very true, And I very much would like to see explanations that could be more believable than those provided. I do understand that they weren't provided with any high degree of confidence and that does provide room for others to make their own speculations on the subject and whether you agree with me or not, it must be clear to you I find much that is objectionable with the current standard BB model of our universe. I don't have any problems with bucking the mainstream consensus. I do have a very good imagination and I like to exercise it and although I sometimes get stuck with foot in mouth I usually recover with my ego still intact. In any event I'd rather get stuck with foot in mouth than quietly sit in a corner and watch life go by. Also pushing on mainstream theories can be quite enjoyable and sometimes good things happen because of it.
    Lance,
    I don't accept Big Bang theory. My objections are largely philosophical and procedural. As such you will never see me attack it on this or any other science forum. Indeed, you can find several examples on this forum, if you were to waste the time looking, where I defend it, or elements of it.

    Why do I do so? Why would I defend something which I believe to be wrong? Because currently, from a scientific perspective, the Big Bang provides the best explanation for our observations and theoretical considerations. Until and unless someone finds a better explanation, or falsifies BBT that is how I shall continue. I will not tolerate attacks on BBT that lack scientific riogour, because ultimately those are attacks on science.

    However I sense when it comes to imagination I have you all beat and sometimes putting knowledge, brain power and imagination together can provide good results.
    I think you will find that several of the posters on this forum have an imagination at least as broad, deep and twelve dimensionally extensive as yours. What they also have is an effective self censorship mechanism that lets them identify bullshit, even when it is self generated. You might want to look into that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Let's have a look at mainstream cosmology on the BB:

    Branes = no evidence.
    Other universes =- no evidence.
    More dimensions that the 3 that we see = no evidence.
    Singularities = no evidence.
    Ultimate temperature = no evidence.
    Inflation = no evidence.
    Changed to expansion = no evidence.
    The fact that it could resist gravity when a zillion times that necessary to create a black hole = no evidence.
    Dark energy = no evidence.
    This is completely wrong, on too many counts and levels to even be worthy of detailed response. Much of what you list is not mainstream cosmology. That which is is completely mis-characterized. You have no idea what you are talking about. My dog is better informed -- at least he is not so damn positive about things that are totally wrong.

    Just as a small example, while inflation is not fully confirmed there is strong evidence in the WMAP survey results -- particularly in the patterns of subtle anisotropy as predicted by the inflation model. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29601


    I am not parroting anything. But you are parroting the usual nonsense of the lunatic fringe who don't understand the state of scientific knowledge but are intimidated by it.

    You need to learn enough science to be able to discuss it intelligently and to know what is well-established, what seems promising but needs more work, and what is nonsense. Here is a hint: for prime examples of complete nonsense, just read your posts.

    You are still a long way from being able to comment intelligently on this subject. Go educate yourself, and stop making foolish statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •