Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Black Hole Is A Requirement For Life ?


84 replies to this topic

#1 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:59 AM

This is an interesting concept from a recent article in Scientific American (SciAm), "Black Hole in the Heart of the Milky Way", Caleb Scharf.

This is derived from recent observations (some of which I wasn't aware of till now). So we know that the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy switches "on" and "off", gobbling up matter. What the author is saying that it is during the on periods of the BH that promotes intense radiation generated nearby from matter falling that promotes gas being blown away from the center. Then it is bow shock of these gas clouds that produces the action of gas clouds collecting together to form stars and planets. i was aware of how clouds could form. I just had never seen all the "dots" connected together so eloquently.

By comparing our galaxy with as many others that can confirm having a BH at its center and noting the differences. The author is compiling this collection of galaxies into three groups: more blue stars (blue stars are hotter and therefore often have shorter lifetimes), more red stars and the middle which the author labels the "green valley". There is a presumption in this classification of considering the Main Sequence only.
Giants and other objects have their own track. So the author is saying that the Milky Way is in this green valley because our massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy switch on/off "just right", kinda' like the porridge in the Goldilocks tale. Too much and we would have mostly hot blue stars with too short of a lifetime, too little and we would get mostly red cool stars with very small habitable life zones.

I recommend reading this article if you are interested. Thus as we gaze upon the universe and wish to consider whether life is out there we only need to look at galaxies either galaxies with active galactic cores or ones that exhibit a Black Hole at its center. Fascinating!

maddog

#2 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 04:19 AM

... on periods of the BH that promotes intense radiation generated nearby from matter falling that promotes gas being blown away from the center.
maddog


The SciAm author might be mistaken about a few things.

We should doubt that a SMBH (Super-massive Black Hole) has any on/off switch, and gas is hardly to be blown away from the center An upward-pointing electric field in that region would deliver electrons down the rotational axis of the accretion disk and they would repel each other away along that axis, but that isn't gas.

When a stellar system falls prey to capture by the black hole is the time when activity will be noticeable. A creative discussion would be in the making if we were to examine the circumstances for pulling stellar systems down into the accretion disk and from there, the circumstances that would deliver such matter down to the SMBH.

What procedures take stellar systems down into the SMBH? Gravity is just one if the factors involved for orbital trajectories.

#3 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 03:33 PM

We should doubt that a SMBH (Super-massive Black Hole) has any on/off switch, and gas is hardly to be blown away from the center An upward-pointing electric field in that region would deliver electrons down the rotational axis of the accretion disk and they would repel each other away along that axis, but that isn't gas.

I may not have been saying it correctly, maybe.

The "on/off switch" is somewhat simple than maybe I implied. On is when there is matter to fall in towards the center. Off is when there is not.

I don't have the article to quote from at the moment. What I remember was [more succinctly matter] is "blown away" up from the poles similar (if not the same) as the mechanism as the Blandford-Znajeck mechinism (cause for Blazars) [sorry if I got the name misspelled].

In a Nova I saw in 2009 on SMBH found to be at centers of galaxies, this was all discussed. Again, I did not mean to misstate what is happening.

maddog

Edited by maddog, 08 August 2012 - 03:34 PM.


#4 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 05:07 PM

The "on/off switch" is somewhat simple than maybe I implied. On is when there is matter to fall in towards the center. Off is when there is not.

I don't have the article to quote from at the moment. What I remember was [more succinctly matter] is "blown away" up from the poles similar (if not the same) as the mechanism as the Blandford-Znajeck mechinism (cause for Blazars) [sorry if I got the name misspelled].


Did not mean to quibble, and it is beside the point that I have big problems with: not you but with your source material. To go into my alternative theory here would be for me to be a hijacker. I seek only to challenge any casual presumption that matter will fall towards the center.

Why does it go down there? What takes stellar systems out of orbit and into the accretion disk, and why does it not remain in orbit within the disk once it does get there?

In all humility, I beleive that the answer to my questions comes only through theory that serves to dismiss any validity to your source data.

My point is this: nothing falls into the accretion disk, the accretion disk grows outward to envelope whatever stellar matter becomes enveloped by its clutches.

#5 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 08:54 PM

Why does it go down there? What takes stellar systems out of orbit and into the accretion disk, and why does it not remain in orbit within the disk once it does get there?

In all humility, I believe that the answer to my questions comes only through theory that serves to dismiss any validity to your source data.

My point is this: nothing falls into the accretion disk, the accretion disk grows outward to envelope whatever stellar matter becomes enveloped by its clutches.


Generally speaking, a BH's gravity this side of the event horizon is no different than any other body of mass in the universe. The only way stars are going to fall into one is if the orbits get disturbed by events like two galaxies colliding with each other.

Galaxies have life cycles they go through. When they first formed the universe was mostly hydrogen gas. As the gas started compressing around the BH it would be so much that it would over whelm the BH, which couldn't take it in fast enough, and the energy release would be horrific in an extreme magnetic field the highly ionized gas would be forced outward at the polls. I believe this level of activity is called a quasar. Besides the polar jets there is going to be a powerful BH wind similar to our solar wind but on a bigger scale. This wind will cause an outward compression wave in the surrounding gas and at some point it will be enough to stop the infalling gas and start star formation. The first generation stars will have many more very large fast burning stars that will go super nova and start spreading the heavy elements needed to form stars that can have rocky worlds where conditions can be right for life. Our own sun is at least a 3rd or 4th generation star far enough from the galactic core to avoid most of the intense radiation and not so far out where many stars may not be in areas that have a good heavy element mix to support life.

#6 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:25 PM

Generally speaking, a BH's gravity this side of the event horizon is no different than any other body of mass in the universe. The only way stars are going to fall into one is if the orbits get disturbed by events like two galaxies colliding with each other.


Then you seem beleive that the Milky way BH was formed before being approached by the great hydrogen gas cloud, and has not grown much since? That theory adds a mystery as to where the BH came from.

Galaxies have life cycles they go through. When they first formed the universe was mostly hydrogen gas. As the gas started compressing around the BH it would be so much that it would over whelm the BH, which couldn't take it in fast enough, and the energy release would be horrific in an extreme magnetic field the highly ionized gas would be forced outward at the polls. I believe this level of activity is called a quasar. Besides the polar jets there is going to be a powerful BH wind similar to our solar wind but on a bigger scale. This wind will cause an outward compression wave in the surrounding gas and at some point it will be enough to stop the infalling gas and start star formation.


Seeking to differ. I cannot sort out how you come up with all that stuff. I do think that galactic polar jets work just like the electrostatic electron guns in the old TV sets, but on a much larger scale. Suspect that our CRTs use mere pragmatic discoveries.

Why would your galaxy spin the way it does? Why do we find a accretion "disk" if it is not in business? (Our galaxy collapsed sort of to a flat disk, but the accretion disk has now gotten so fat that it is a galactic bulge. Why is it now so fat?

The structure of our galaxy suggests that it started out with some negative charge - perhaps by chance. The smaller it got the more intensive ionic density became around its outer surface. That provided a downward-pointing electric field. Such a field pushed any positive ions downward toward the center of the proto-galaxy. Given time, so many protons were crowded into the center that they formed a shell: hollowed out due to mutual repulsion. Gravitation of that shell called neutral matter in to its center where a black hole would form.

The proton shell called in such matter in without joining their trip to the center. It stayed outside what became its black hole and it served as its accretion disk and stands now as the galactic bulge. It had become an outer limit to a domain bearing an upward-pointing electric field contained concentrically, by the alternate domain of downward-pointing electric field. Counter-intuitive, but comprehensible if you give it time. Unless an atom holds a neutron, it steals the proton for additional growth. The black hole below feeds on discarded electrons until it nulls its huge gravitation for another electron.

All this is readily available through mental experimentation. Using the scientific method, elite science has spent decades coming up with the wrong answer for polar jets. I know a fool who noodled it out in 3 seconds. Just get the right answer.

#7 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:27 PM

Then you seem believe that the Milky way BH was formed before being approached by the great hydrogen gas cloud, and has not grown much since? That theory adds a mystery as to where the BH came from.


Yes I do. I've been working on a theory that BH's (at least the supermassive ones) existed before the big bang, and became the focal points for the galaxies of stars to form around. It has been shown that there is a direct correlation between the size of a galaxy and the mass of the central BH. It's been a very consistent measurement in all galaxies they've looked at. To me that would suggest that the initial size of the BH would only capture an amount of gas based on it's initial gravity and the gravity of all the dark matter in orbit around the BH at that time. Since BH's don't grow out of nothing these BH's were around and growing in a previous big bang event. However at this time I'm not going to present a more detailed theory.

Seeking to differ. I cannot sort out how you come up with all that stuff. I do think that galactic polar jets work just like the electrostatic electron guns in the old TV sets, but on a much larger scale. Suspect that our CRTs use mere pragmatic discoveries.


I was only stating the major consensus about what causes quasars. If you have a better explanation I'd be glad to here it.

Why would your galaxy spin the way it does? Why do we find a accretion "disk" if it is not in business? (Our galaxy collapsed sort of to a flat disk, but the accretion disk has now gotten so fat that it is a galactic bulge. Why is it now so fat?


Beside the Initial stage of galaxy formation, all galaxies merge with smaller galaxies and star clusters. These mergers don't just blend in with the current accretion disk, so when stars from a merged star cluster approach the galactic core they won't necessarily fall into an accretion orbit. In observations of some of the largest galaxies they are all pretty much all elliptical in shape, which means they have stars in orbit every which way. Given enough time they might flatten out into an accretion disk, but I won't be holding my breath.

The structure of our galaxy suggests that it started out with some negative charge - perhaps by chance. The smaller it got the more intensive ionic density became around its outer surface. That provided a downward-pointing electric field. Such a field pushed any positive ions downward toward the center of the proto-galaxy. Given time, so many protons were crowded into the center that they formed a shell: hollowed out due to mutual repulsion. Gravitation of that shell called neutral matter in to its center where a black hole would form.

The proton shell called in such matter in without joining their trip to the center. It stayed outside what became its black hole and it served as its accretion disk and stands now as the galactic bulge. It had become an outer limit to a domain bearing an upward-pointing electric field contained concentrically, by the alternate domain of downward-pointing electric field. Counter-intuitive, but comprehensible if you give it time. Unless an atom holds a neutron, it steals the proton for additional growth. The black hole below feeds on discarded electrons until it nulls its huge gravitation for another electron.

All this is readily available through mental experimentation. Using the scientific method, elite science has spent decades coming up with the wrong answer for polar jets. I know a fool who noodled it out in 3 seconds. Just get the right answer.


Sorry but I'm not following any of this.

#8 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:14 AM

I was recently shown a useful, coin-of-the-realm approach to saying what happens when there is an imbalance of electrical particles within a given domain. What I have discovered about arrays concentric formations of alternately polarized particles takes me thousands of words to explain, but using a little gift from Michael Faraday, I can say it all with eight and a half words. The term "electric field" remained outside my useful vocabulary for the six decades and counting of my preoccupation with electronics.

The URL is:
http://physics.info/electric-field/

Earth and her star share a downward-pointing electric field. That just tells us how those hosting environments treat charged particles. It pushes positive particles inward (toward the center) and pushes electrons outward aka upward. I beleive that too many advanced scientists have never gotten past the dry-winter parlor trick of scuffing up a spark. When a molecule is broken into ions, the ions find themselves with other electrical traction than just the attraction that would rejoin the pieces back together.

An overabundance of electrons on an isolated hosting body demonstrates itself by coating the host with the surplus electrons. This brings on and maintains a downward-pointing electrical field. Consequently, while ionization remains, the negative ion or electron will propagate upwards and the positive ion will be moved into the opposite direction. This alone tells our minds that Earth and Sol have positive cores. We don't inspect the centers of these orbs because of the discomforts involved, but if we all continue to ignore the theory, then we are refusing to play with a full deck. Try it: You will like it.

It presents a natural law that any charged particle within a host charged to the opposite polarity will possess an attraction toward the center of that host. Of course, it will move or propagate only according to the algebraic sum of all forces placed upon it. For instance, the thermionic cloud of electrons presented by a candle flame would form a pencil-beam formation travelling through a positively charged hoop. At each point along the trajectory, an electron seeks to center itself on they way into the hoop by remaining equidistant to all points around the effective circle of positive charge.

Edited by Heedless, 21 August 2012 - 09:29 PM.


#9 Pincho Paxton

Pincho Paxton

    Permanently suspended

  • Members
  • 124 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

Smaller holes, more like quantum holes would exhibit useful physics for life. The huge holes at the centre of galaxies are more useful for star, and planet production IMO. I believe that the Earth lies on a greenline of quantum holes. Call it the zero line.

Edited by Pincho Paxton, 09 August 2012 - 08:36 AM.


#10 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:33 AM

... I seek only to challenge any casual presumption that matter will fall towards the center.
Why does it go down there? What takes stellar systems out of orbit and into the accretion disk, and why does it not remain in orbit within the disk once it does get there?

Simple. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

[Please forgive my lack of good LaTex.]
F = Gm1m2/r^2

... My point is this: nothing falls into the accretion disk, the accretion disk grows outward to envelope whatever stellar matter becomes enveloped by its clutches.

If "nothing falls" then the accretion disk does not grow. It is not that matter gets "created". I am not sure of what "physics" you are using.

As arKane stated above, outside the Event Horizon of the Black Hole (any size), the equations of motion can be well described by the above formula to high accuracy. As one nears the region where the accretion disk is gobbling up matter outside (by gravity) to "fall" inside, all the glory of General Relativity (GR) and its tensor mathematics must be used. Space and Time get warped in this region because of gravity.

maddog

#11 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 11:51 AM

Then you seem beleive that the Milky way BH was formed before being approached by the great hydrogen gas cloud, and has not grown much since? That theory adds a mystery as to where the BH came from.

I can not speak for others. I am not sure whether it is currently know whether either was formed before the other or both SMBH and galaxy formed together. I can understand arKane's method because during the BB moment differential pressures could allow regions of highly dense matter to form during the inflationary period. His statement as to being before the start of the BB is his own. I have read about the theory that there might have been a "before" the BB. I am not convinced either way and remain open waiting for more info.



Seeking to differ. I cannot sort out how you come up with all that stuff. I do think that galactic polar jets work just like the electrostatic electron guns in the old TV sets, but on a much larger scale. Suspect that our CRTs use mere pragmatic discoveries.

It is my understanding that the Blandford-Znajeck process is somewhat described this way (only as describing how jets form at the poles), even this is oversimplifying the process.

Why would your galaxy spin the way it does?

Simple. Angular Momentum is conserved in the spin.

Why do we find a accretion "disk" if it is not in business? (Our galaxy collapsed sort of to a flat disk, but the accretion disk has now gotten so fat that it is a galactic bulge. Why is it now so fat?

I think maybe you have a misunderstanding of the scale. The galactic plane of a galaxy is not the accretion disk of the SMBH. This is much closer the whole (well within the bulge of the central hub of that galaxy). An SMBH may go "quiet" for a period if the accretion shrinks to a point where not enough matter is falling in to give off radiation (X-Rays - given when off electrons convert PE to light).

maddog

#12 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 12:07 PM

Smaller holes, more like quantum holes would exhibit useful physics for life. The huge holes at the centre of galaxies are more useful for star, and planet production IMO. I believe that the Earth lies on a greenline of quantum holes. Call it the zero line.

For the larger objects (i.e. SMBH) was the focus of the article. As for quantum sized. I was not aware we have observed any. One thing I figured out was once a charge of ions (positive or negative) would get near the surface, to an observer outside would feel the field of monopole which would be like a dipole except that the opposite pole would at the other side of the singularity.
So, if we ever do discover any monopoles, they may end up being quantum sized black holes.

maddog

#13 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 04:28 PM

Simple. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

[Please forgive my lack of good LaTex.]
F = Gm1m2/r^2


If "nothing falls" then the accretion disk does not grow. It is not that matter gets "created". I am not sure of what "physics" you are using.

As arKane stated above, outside the Event Horizon of the Black Hole (any size), the equations of motion can be well described by the above formula to high accuracy. As one nears the region where the accretion disk is gobbling up matter outside (by gravity) to "fall" inside, all the glory of General Relativity (GR) and its tensor mathematics must be used. Space and Time get warped in this region because of gravity.

maddog


I use applied physics. The accretion disk is fed continuously from the protons pressed downward by the electric field of the outer, star-bearing portion of the galaxy. Those extra protons that it skims from its prey are just extra gravy.

It is strange to see that you supply me with the factors involved with gravity. The relevant issue is that objects in orbit nullify reduction of the radius factor by the equivalent elevation acquired due to tangential velocity.

The issue remains that outlying matter presents itself as being in orbit. What must you overlook to in order for you to suppose that such matter should descend? Our Earthly satellite has been staying aloft for at least 960 moons as far as I can remember.

#14 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:06 PM

Angular Momentum is conserved in the spin.

How true. What I meant was that our galaxy is mostly stuff all going around in the same direction within the circle. That must have been so long before it flattened. A preexisting BH would not have gathered matter in that order.


I think maybe you have a misunderstanding of the scale. The galactic plane of a galaxy is not the accretion disk of the SMBH. This is much closer the whole (well within the bulge of the central hub of that galaxy). An SMBH may go "quiet" for a period if the accretion shrinks to a point where not enough matter is falling in to give off radiation (X-Rays - given when off electrons convert PE to light).

maddog


It is the rotational axis of the accretion disk that determines the direction of polar jets. It is upon that axis where the upward pointing electric field of the accretion disk pushes electrons that have been extracted from captured matter.

#15 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:18 AM

I use applied physics. The accretion disk is fed continuously from the protons pressed downward by the electric field of the outer, star-bearing portion of the galaxy. Those extra protons that it skims from its prey are just extra gravy.

I am not sure you using "physics" at all from the comment above. I do not understand what you are driving at... :eek_big:

It is strange to see that you supply me with the factors involved with gravity. The relevant issue is that objects in orbit nullify reduction of the radius factor by the equivalent elevation acquired due to tangential velocity.

Gravity is the force that defines the object as a Black Hole. It would not be "black" without it. The more you say shows how little you know.

The issue remains that outlying matter presents itself as being in orbit. What must you overlook to in order for you to suppose that such matter should descend? Our Earthly satellite has been staying aloft for at least 960 moons as far as I can remember.

Your first sentence would be correct. The orbit would define the accretion disk. From the rest, I can see you don't understand Newtons Law at all.

maddog

#16 maddog

maddog

    Cybernetic Quantum Alchemist

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:30 AM

... What I meant was that our galaxy is mostly stuff all going around in the same direction within the circle. That must have been so long before it flattened. A preexisting BH would not have gathered matter in that order.

Only models of galaxies having matter going in the same direction make sense. Were some SMBH to exist at its center, this object also would rotate in the same direction Angular Momentum pulls the disk out and flattening it as the object speeds up. If a BH object were primordal or a remnant of the BB, it could be the source of gathering material near it to form a galaxy. This would make the BH object present before the galaxy object as arKane said above. If not, it could have formed afterwards due to gravity pulling things into the center to a density to form. The important point is the accretion disk a SMBH were one in the galaxy would be many time smaller than the central hub of the galaxy.

It is the rotational axis of the accretion disk that determines the direction of polar jets. It is upon that axis where the upward pointing electric field of the accretion disk pushes electrons that have been extracted from captured matter.

Yes, the jets would be a good indication that matter is being gobbled up at the center. The conversion of potential energy (PE) to kinetic energy (KE) is what fuels the process and generates the intense electric and magnetic fields to induce the intense flow of matter as jets.

maddog

#17 Heedless

Heedless

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:25 PM

I am not sure you using "physics" at all from the comment above. I do not understand what you are driving at... :eek_big:


Gravity is the force that defines the object as a Black Hole. It would not be "black" without it. The more you say shows how little you know.


Your first sentence would be correct. The orbit would define the accretion disk. From the rest, I can see you don't understand Newtons Law at all.

maddog


AD hominem attacks tell me that there is nothing I can or want to do to help you.



Reply to this topic