Huge Galaxy Collision!!!

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Pluto,

 

I'm sorry to have called you by an imaginary wrong name last time! :)

 

Are you saying that these neutron compact matter are able or unable to prevent light from escaping.

 

Neutron stars do radiate energy at wavelengths from radio to X-ray and gamma. Pulsars are possibly rotating n-stars, and were discovered by detection of their oscillating radio emissions. In fact, we know quite a lot about n-stars from observational measurement (as opposed to theoretical modelling). This includes size (diameter), mass, seismic properties (leading to inferred geophysical structure), etc. Several papers have been published after peer review in the last year or so reporting things like the discovery of n-star systems where BHs were originally thought to be, and gamma ray bursts from n-star collisions.

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Hilton

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can call me Harry,,,,,,,,,,,its ok

 

They knew it was me, by my first post.

 

I feel sometimes, That I just came out of jail.

 

=================================================

 

Some papers have N-stars with a quark core: What do you think?

 

=================================================

 

OK,,,,,,,,,the event horizon, Does it exist?

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Pluto,

 

1. Some papers have N-stars with a quark core: What do you think?

2. the event horizon, Does it exist?

 

1. I'm not sure about quarks. My colleagues in particle physics seem sure that they "see" quarks, but Oliver warned me to be careful about accepting the existance of partial charge. It would bring a whole lot of problems with it. Maybe they are not quanta but merely patterns, like particle spin is not rotation, just a state. I don't think quarks can exists as individual entities, but to be honest I don't know. It's over my head.

2. Because I maintain that matter cannot collapse beyond nuclear density, it follows that I cannot see that matter can be dense enough to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. So no, no event horizon. But here's something: What about event thresholds? :)

 

Best

Hilton

[Buffy]

Black Holes, by definition cannot detectably radiate (ignore gravitational waves and Hawking radiation). Therefore, the effects being described here are caused directly by objects outside the event horizon. The function of the Black Hole in these events would only be that of a source of intense mass energy. If we can substitute compact objects for Black Holes - and it is my view that we can - then we have a less controversial (and maybe less interesting and exciting :)) solution for what we see.

This is different than the statement I was responding to, which implied that a black hole could not be associated with "jets" and MECO's would, thus defining a mechanism for distinguishing them.

 

Obviously the next implication is that you desire this distinction because if it were not the case, jets would not support your argument that black holes do not exist.

 

I only called this out because all models of black holes do indeed predict that they will, in the presence of other matter, cause such jets to occur, and saying they do not is either to say that this part of the models is wrong--which you would need to explain--or argue the extremely strained semantic point that black holes "have no direct effect outside their event horizon: this is akin to arguing that "rain and wind in the vicinity of hurricanes are not attributable to the hurricane itself."

 

There are indeed data points that would argue against black holes, but "black holes cannot cause jets" is not one of them.

 

Incredibly dense,

Buffy

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

OK

 

Now we can go the next step

 

Compact matter,,,,,,,,,,,I sometimes call it ultra dense plasma matter.

=====================================================

I forgot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,What about Neutrons merging,,,,,,,,,,did I say this before.

 

and What about the application of wave theory centres to explain the compaction of matter.

=====================================================

 

This compact matter is able to eject matter and not only eject but able to eject compact as compact matter to seed future stars.

 

In super massive compact matter it will have the ability to reform a galaxy,

such as an eliptical galaxy which in time forms a spiral and in time matter is sucked back to the centre CM activating the neucleon to restart and reform the galaxy into a elliptical galaxy.

 

Hubble thought that eliptical galaxies are formed and evolved into spiral.

Modern cosmology thinks that spiral than elliptical, they give the reason that matter cannot spontaneouly form.

 

I just combine the both thoughts and give it as many billions of years it wants to evolve.

 

I may have repeated the above,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry

 

This theory is an opinion and if correct supports the cycling process that is endless.

 

This will also explain why all matter cannot be compacted in one spot but many spots and recycle.

 

Its good to dream

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Buffy,

 

I only called this out because all models of black holes do indeed predict that they will, in the presence of other matter, cause such jets to occur, and saying they do not is either to say that this part of the models is wrong--which you would need to explain--or argue the extremely strained semantic point that black holes "have no direct effect outside their event horizon: this is akin to arguing that "rain and wind in the vicinity of hurricanes are not attributable to the hurricane itself."

 

It seem it is you who are straining at a sematic leash, and furthermore putting words in my mouth and second-guessing my arguments. Perhaps you will understand if I put it this way: The jets and radiation attributed to Black Holes do not emanate from Black Holes themselves because they are constrained from doing so by an escape velocity which is too high. Therefore, the causal function of Black Holes in observed events is limited to that of providing mass energy. The corollary is that mass energy meeting these requirements could more logically and with better physics be attributed to neutron stars.

 

Best

Hilton

[Buffy]

The jets and radiation attributed to Black Holes do not emanate from Black Holes themselves because they are constrained from doing so by an escape velocity which is too high. Therefore, the causal function of Black Holes in observed events is limited to that of providing mass energy.

This is a technically true statement, given that your definition of "emanate" is exclusively referring to crossing the event horizon of the hole.

 

While you may want to argue that the usage is "incorrect," even experts on this subject will use the word "emanate" to relate to phenomena caused by all of its effects on the area immediately surrounding it.

 

Thus my hurricane analogy: I could also say that "the Earth's effects on our weather are limited to its gravity, heat, spin, friction, etc." The particular phraseology of "is limited to" is technically correct, but does in its semantics discount the importance of those effects.

The corollary is that mass energy meeting these requirements could more logically and with better physics be attributed to neutron stars.

Trying to read this strictly then, I do take it that you agree that "limited" nature of the black hole's contribution does not at all rule out the possibility that such observed effects could happen in the vicinity of a black hole. But I'll leave the subjective opinions of "more logical" and "with better physics" to those who actually know what they're arguing about.

 

That's all I was saying anyway!

 

I really don't want to put words in your mouth, but you may wish to consider how the ones that do come out of it are interpreted by at least a few of us rubes...

 

Black holes are where God divided by zero, :)

Buffy

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Buffy,

 

Perhaps your hurricane analogy can best illustrate the weakness of your argument.

 

I only called this out because all models of black holes do indeed predict that they will, in the presence of other matter, cause such jets to occur, and saying they do not is either to say that this part of the models is wrong--which you would need to explain--or argue the extremely strained semantic point that black holes "have no direct effect outside their event horizon: this is akin to arguing that "rain and wind in the vicinity of hurricanes are not attributable to the hurricane itself."

 

What the Black Hole exponents (and you, it seems) are saying is that rain and wind next to something unseen must have come from a hurricane. The point I am emphasising is not a game of semantics; it is extremely important to the verity of empirical science. The effects being observed do not emanate from a Black Hole, I think we can agree on that at least. They emanate from normal baryonic matter agitated by gravitation. It is not neccessary to postulate the existence of an object that requires extremes of mathematics (including divide-by-zero) to explain what we see (radiation and jets) if those objects are known to emanate from normal material systems, provided of course, there is enough mass energy present. In essence then, I say we do not need to invoke Black Holes to explain what we see, standard physics is adequate - Occam's razor and Newton's Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy (appended to the Principia), rule number one: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

 

I accept the concilliatory tone of your last post, and consider the peace pipe smoked.

 

Best

Hilton :)

[Jay-qu]

Hilton, you are right insofar that accretion and jets can be formed by large dense objects such as neutron stars, its not required they are black holes. The thing is that there are galaxies out there that have jets of matter extending thousands of light years into space! what if it can been seen from the trajectory and velocities of observed particles, require that they have been accelerated by something that has a mass larger than the chandrasekah limit? do you admit that the object must at least be of a mass that gravitational effects should have caused it to collapse under its own mass?

[Pluto]

Hello Hilto

 

You said

 

Perhaps you will understand if I put it this way: The jets and radiation attributed to Black Holes do not emanate from Black Holes themselves because they are constrained from doing so by an escape velocity which is too high. Therefore, the causal function of Black Holes in observed events is limited to that of providing mass energy. The corollary is that mass energy meeting these requirements could more logically and with better physics be attributed to neutron stars.

 

Are you saying that compact cores regardless of their size are unable to eject matter from the compact core.

 

If this is the case:

 

If the universe is endless in time, space and matter. Than we would expect everything to be collecting in one or "two" spots, take it to infinity, to one spot.

 

We do not observe this, even though we see giant super clusters of galaxies.

 

The theory that nothing can escape a black hole has a floor in it.

 

Lets take two black holes, one large one small. The large one will suck the matter out of the small black hole.

 

If compact matter is made from Neutrons than this matter will have the ability to create a vortex with its own electromagnetic forces that is able to eject degenerated matter.

 

In the formation of elliptical galaxies the output from such active compact core is much greater than the matter that is sucked in. If this is the case where does the new matter come from to balance.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Jay-qu,

 

Thank you for your questions. I have noted in your posts that you seek answers (rather than intellectual gloss), and that is great.

 

Hilton, you are right insofar that accretion and jets can be formed by large dense objects such as neutron stars, its not required they are black holes.

 

It is required that jets do not emanate from Black Holes. See my previous posts. Jets cannot come out of BHs, they can only come out of normal objects supposedly when stimulated by intense gravitation. It is suggested that the gravitational stimulus originates in some cases in BHs.

 

The thing is that there are galaxies out there that have jets of matter extending thousands of light years into space! what if it can been seen from the trajectory and velocities of observed particles, require that they have been accelerated by something that has a mass larger than the chandrasekah limit?

 

Yes indeed there are huge jets seen in space, associated with both observed and unobserved objects. A polar jet has been found extending 1 AU from the South Pole of the Sun. A helical plasma structure >80 LY long, strongly resembling a Birkeland current, has been imaged near the core of the Milky Way. In many cases, observed jets have a noticeable longitudinal twist. This suggests electro-magnetism. The Faraday effect is a demonstration of the tight synergy between electricity, magnetism, and rotation. There is no known upper limit on the size of these objects in space plasma. The acceleration of charged particles is commonly associated with an electrical field. Whatever the effect of electricity is on jets and accelerated particles (it is difficult to reliably quantify for astrophysical objects), we do know that it is not directly dependent on mass, and the Chandrasekhar limit is not relevant to electrical action. Note that there is nevertheless a strong correlation between rotation and electricity, and because of the consevation of angular momentum, a further correlation between mass radial density and spin, so mass and electricity are linked in that way, but I don't think anyone has a formula for it yet. I must say two things here about Chandrasekhar: Firstly, I find his theorising extremely difficult to grasp. It's almost opaque. Have you tried his book "Radiative Transfer"? Maybe he was just too smart for this world. Secondly, in the context of supernovae, he was using a stellar fusion model that is not entirely satisfactory in my experience.

 

do you admit that the object must at least be of a mass that gravitational effects should have caused it to collapse under its own mass?

 

No, I don't think neutron stars form from gravitational collapse. It is more likely that they come about from the implosive part of a SN.

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Sorry, posted this in error. Perhaps someone knows how to delete this post?

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Pluto,

 

Are you saying that compact cores regardless of their size are unable to eject matter from the compact core.

 

No, I don't say that. We see and image jets coming from all sorts of visible objects, including n-stars. We also see objects accreting. What I am saying is that you can't get anything out of a BH except gravitation, and neither can anything go into them according to GRT. That selfsame gravitation may then go and cause havoc in the neighbourhood. You know what gravitons are like. Two beers and they flip! :)

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for this post to be addressed by the late Dr. Spitzer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Hilton said

 

No, I don't say that. We see and image jets coming from all sorts of visible objects, including n-stars. We also see objects accreting. What I am saying is that you can't get anything out of a BH except gravitation, and neither can anything go into them according to GRT. That selfsame gravitation may then go and cause havoc in the neighbourhood. You know what gravitons are like. Two beers and they flip!

 

Please define a Black Hole.

 

===================================================

Thank you for the other posts,,,,,,,,,,,I understand a little bit more and yet the more I read the more I know very little.

 

To me a black hole is just a compacted matter that has enough EMR and electromagnetic strong forces to prevent EMR from escaping.

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi all,

 

While he was at Princeton, Einstein himself published a paper from which the following abridged quotations are drawn (A. Einstein, "Annals of Mathematics", vol. 40, #4, pp. 922-936 October 1939). The term “black hole” was at that stage not yet in use.

“If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry..,[g_44] vanishes for r = m/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in 'coordinate time') in order to reach the point r = m/2 when originating from a point r > m/2. In this sense the sphere r = m/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular.

“There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality...

“One is thus led to ask whether matter cannot be introduced in such a way that questionable assumptions are excluded from the very beginning. In fact this can be done by choosing, as the field-producing mass, a great number of small gravitating particles which move freely under the influence of the field produced by all of them together. This is a system resembling a spherical star cluster. ... The result of the following consideration will be that it is impossible to make g_44 zero anywhere, and that the total gravitating mass which may be produced by distributing particles within a given radius, always remains below a certain bound…

“The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality. ... The 'Schwarzschild singularity' does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

“This investigation arose out of discussions [with Robertson and Bargmann] on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity."

 

Halton Arp put it very nicely: “In its usual perverse way all the talk has been about black holes and all the observations have been about white holes.” (“Observational Cosmology: From High Redshift Galaxies to the Blue Pacific”, Progress in Physics Vol 3, October 2005)

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello Hilto

 

Thanks for that, read that before.

 

Makes sense.

 

but! I have an inbuilt habit force that wants Black Holes to exist. How esle can we make fantastic movies and time machines and dream where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away,,,,,,,,,,,,,smile.