Jump to content
Science Forums

Cyberia

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Cyberia

  1. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21886.0 So who needs dark matter? To me, by definition, it is not so much dark matter holding the stars in which should fly out of our galaxy but more a matter of it slowing down stars so they cannot reach a speed where they would fly out of our galaxy. How can a star travel too fast if gravity is constantly pulling it back? Since our solar system would also be in the grip of dark matter, do we see any planets in inappropriate orbits for their speed?
  2. Over time, stars build up a crust of heavy elements on their surfaces so smother or violently blow the crust off. However with two stars merging, the heavy elements would either be slung off into space because they have greater impetus than lighter elements or sink into the inside of the new star so making it look young again. Think of stirring up a bowl of custard where a skin has formed on the top of it.
  3. The objects are not accelerating but travelling at a constant speed so they are not being pulled towards an unknown object. The article: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/08/dark-flow-discovered-at-edge-of-the-universe-hundreds-of-millions-of-stars-racing-toward-an-cosmic-h.html This show of things contracting over such a huge area is a serious blow to the big bang which talks of expansion.
  4. Dark Matter is an IDEA that was made up to try and explain problems with a belief that the redshift of stellar bodies works the same as the sound of a train whistle passing by. More problems with DM: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/full/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017124344.htm .
  5. Quasars like galaxies involve super massive black holes. Originally it was thought that such SMBH's did not form till around 1400 million years after the BB but we have since found quasars just 770 million years after the BB. The fact that we have found galaxies (mini ones) even older suggests that they may have formed much earlier, maybe just 300 million years after as some have theorised.
  6. I find it strange that GRB's are always very far away. As gravity produces the same redshift as something moving away from us, maybe a good part of what they are measuring is from the central black hole so they are not so far away and not so incredibly powerful?
  7. Informative pictures but not great pictures. Decades ago I joined a photography club which is what these photos need. I don't see any I would use as wallpaper.
  8. Two stars drift within the gravitational field of each other, if close enough they go into a declining orbit and the collision will depend on what they are. Obviously the denser a star is, the more advantage it would have in such a case. Unless the total mass passes a certain point, I don't necessarily see a nova/supernova happening though there could be a lot of ejected material.
  9. A perfect sphere of elementary particles spinning at almost light speed? A radiation free zone, apart from what has just entered the EH. It's just higher figures than outside the event horizon. No big deal.
  10. It is possible that with sufficient forces acting on them several thousands tons of matter could form a sphere of particles with black hole density but the instant those forces are released, the particles would spring apart at getting on light speed. If mini black holes existed, stars would eventually pull them in and they would promptly start consuming the star. How long could it take with all that material "pressed against the black hole" so ready to fall in? I don't think we'd have many stars left in the Universe.
  11. We have had protons with an energy of 3x10^20 eV which travel at virtually light speed. With the central mass of a black hole dragging at them, they might increase speed a mite but as far as it matters we might as well say that event horizon to central core is done at light speed so a very small fraction of a second before it "merges with the core".
  12. If a black hole can crush atomic particles, nothing happens to the entangled particles outside. However we have no evidence that fundamental particles like electrons can be crushed. As to entanglement, you spin one particle up and one down so let's say the total spin value is 1. You measure one and that will dictate the other to give a total of say 1. If you measure them immediately or at opposite ends of the universe you will get the same measurement. What's the big deal? There's no connection between them. Just values given when they are spun up and down. Just quantum hand waving.
  13. 7DSUSYstrings. It seems to me that if you are relying on the anti-particles of supersymetry to produce an anti universe, then you only have the same amount of material as the (normal) universe, so the anti-universe will be the same size. If you allow that there are increments of time (Planck time), then at that level, you have things ceasing to exist between such intervals and reappearing again.
  14. If you use the BB idea, very high energy particles were created in the first second and since such particles would give off high energy photons there would be light. No stars but a haze.
  15. The centre of a black hole would be a perfect sphere. The event horizon, ie: the gravity from it producing a point where even light cannot escape called the event horizon should be an even distance from this sphere. So a sphere also. Like all large objects in space, the black hole spins and mass heading towards it falls towards it's equator, it's place of fastest spin. This could give an illusion of greater diameter.
  16. Every large object in space spins, even galaxies. It seems to be a property of gravity. So we have the event horizon of SMBH's spin at almost light speed because the central sphere of mass is spinning fast (we have no evidence that fundamental particles can be crushed to any smaller size). But I wonder if the core is held "solid" or do all the particles in it try and move at near light speed so despite the gravity, it is somewhat like a liquid sphere with particles near it's centre moving at the same speed as particles on the surface? The fastest matter we have found so far (from space) has
  17. If it is possible to go beyond the edge of the universe, past where any gravity, photons or anything else has ever been able to reach, then there would be absolute nothingness. Or maybe not? And yet what we call nothing could be unstable, with particles, photons, gravity, whatever appearing and disappearing. It only needs for one particle to stay and not go and upset the balance and around that a whole universe could eventually form. It's an idea, but then again, so is the big bang, which is wrong for so many reasons. Many are unwilling to abandon the BB, despite all it's faults and unprov
  18. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/full/ .
  19. The earliest galaxy so far is from 13.2 billion years ago, but it would have formed upto a few hundred million years earlier. Some of the earliest stars were just hydrogen which quickly burned and nova-ed, producing heavier elements for later stars (and planets).
  20. maddog. You say you have used logic and hint that I have not. A rather pointless argument since it is nothing more than an opinion. The spring and weight is based on tried and trusted principles. Hawking radiation is just an idea that we presently have no evidence for. Hardly a comparison. Black holes are said to shrink so slowly that only the smallest will "die" before the Universe ends. So pointless really, even if true. Electrons have been shown to be as near as makes no different 100% spherical. Point sized is only a matter of going smaller till you start seeing something more.
  21. maddog I don't mind playing atheist to your creationist (as in someone who uncritically laps up all dogma). This is chalk and cheese. Two fast moving particles are created yet somehow they manage to annihilate each other. They need contact to do this and that is not going to happen. As hundreds of universe appear and die and the black hole gets smaller (that is the time scales we are talking of with Hawking Radiation). Black holes are messy eaters and maybe 90% of what heads towards them does not enter. Even in quiet periods there is going to be stuff heading their way as t
  22. maddog. I'll type slower and see if you can understand it this time. With temperatures approaching 300K, it is hard to get rid of all heat. At 2.7K, that may be possible. Cooling something down is getting rid of all of it's KE, it's ability to move on a molecular level. If we can do that to molecules, it will be the same effect as freezing them to 0.K. My paradox. You can only hold five balls but there are six of them. Every time you pick up the sixth ball, you drop one so still only have five. Therefore no matter how hard you try, you can never pick up all the balls. Tha
  23. maddog. Ignoring where you were thinking of something to say: This is nonsense. Time is the same for anti-matter as matter as it's creation in colliders have shown. Time does not run backwards for anything outside of science fiction. Excuse me for sticking with the real world. sqrt(-1) is an imaginary value used in equations. As is infinity. How can something have existence if it does not exist? Then you woke up.
  24. Dark energy helps space expand according to theory. Evidence that space can expand is......missing. Evidence that space is anything more than the distance between two objects is.....missing. We accept that heat, magnetism, etc travels through space yet when it comes to gravity, oh, it warps space. Evidence of this is like my lucky charm that keeps blue elephants away. Proof that it works is that there are no blue elephants on Earth. And of course we have no evidence that dark energy actually exists.
  25. But he may do so one day. It is just conjecture and exists without any proof to back it up and may one day be found to be wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...