Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[maddog]

Ok maddog, let's say what was the BB composed of in the first second. I think it was just radiation with a frequency equal to the total energy of the universe (f = E/h). This should be one of the most important questions in physics. So far I have not seen any of the standard model or QM people give a direct answer. I think one of the reasons is that it is dangerous ground for both theories. If it is radiation they have the problem of explaining how to get matter from that radiation.

I concur with the link that CraigD provided

 

Timeline of the Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I was also thinking back to both books by Brian Greene I read awhile ago --

 

Inherit the Universe

Fabric of the Cosmos

 

I can subscribe the all time periods after the "Quark Epoch" (~10e-6 sec). That is I can get my hands around the theory of QCD (I somewhat understand it) and

feel comfy in that there exists corroborating evidence in the body of accelerators around the planet that validate the findings of QCD, Quarks Gluons and such.

 

Earlier than that with each epoch before has mostly only theory backing it up.

We have evidence of the Symmetry Breaking as the Electro-Weak theory separates apart into distinct forces. There currently is no supporting evidence on equivalent Symmetry Breaking of the Strong Force from the GUT triune set

{Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic}.

 

This is not to say I disavow this as valid. I just get queasy attempting to swallow it carte blanche with supporting evidence. Call me from Missouri !

[Actually I am a Hoosier by birth]

 

 

maddog

[maddog]

Ok you have given your answer. I must make the assumption that gravity did not exist for the next several months or even years since the entire mass of the universe is contained within this expanding sphere one would think that like a black hole nothing could escape.

Gravity as a Force would exist (in theory) down to the Planck Scale (10e-43 sec)

after BB. It is just not know how this works (at least not in my mind).

 

maddog

[maddog]

It is very hard to state and explain and corroborate when the informtion on cosmology is very limited.

How convenient for you... :hihi:

 

Relativistic poynting jets

arXiv.org Search

I think with this link you have hit new heights (54 separate papers) on nothing I was talking about (though interesting).

 

You titled them as "Relativistic poynting jets" (I assume your search criteria).

Hmmm... Got me thinking. Poynting Vector from where in physics do I remember that... I can see I am getting old. So I Googled it

 

Poynting vector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- basically the Flux of the Electromagnetic through a surface.

 

Then I saw in another few papers the term Blazars (I vaguely remember this from Astrophysics class). I googled it too

 

Blazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

These are what I remember by the arguement of Harp and Bachall in a book (c. 1984) call Redshift Controversy. They were using these Quasar objects (high Z)

implicating a Blue shift instead of Red

 

Then I found two more interesting items in your selection (these have toooo many to list themselves) so for those interested use the following subject lines in your own Google search:

 

Blandford-Znajek Mechanism

Meisner Effect

 

The first yields a lot of papers on describing this mechanism how a Black Hole can generate hugely accelerating plasma as jets popping out perpendicularly from the accretion disk of a Black Hole. A couple required a Kerr Metric (hole to be rotating) to work.

 

Second is a description of the expulsion of magnetic fields from a superconductor.

 

However, nowhere was Any implication that any such jets came from WITHIN the Black Hole. None whatsoever. In fact every paper I flipped through (I haven't got to them all) agreed with the conventional wisdom this plasma or stream of relativistically accelerated particles are accelerated from outside (accretion disk itself).

 

 

maddog

[maddog]

If matter cannot be create or distroyed than we can assume that the matter existed in some form of compact degenerate matter throughout the universe in various points until the TIME came to eject this matter forming the so called Big Bang throughout the universe at the same time.

CragD already answer this well enough that I don't have to.

 

However, you being a proponent or protagonist for cycling, I would expect you to

espouse the idea of spontaneous creation a Hoyle did in his Steady State theories

from back in the 50s.

 

Big Bang nucleosynthesis describes the event.

I am not sure what you mean by this. If you are thinking of the origin of the BB event, then I think you would need a multiverse (Wheeler's term for universe of universes) or many multiple branes if you subscribe to M-Theory.

 

 

maddog

[coldcreation]

For the probability of such a very low probability event occurring to become likely, a long time is needed. Edward Tyron summarized this in the famous (at least among cosmology enthusiasts) quote "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time". We’ve discussed this a few times at hypography: searching the forums for “Tyron” will find these discussions.

 

I believe the name is spelled Edward Tryon (as opposed to Tyron).

 

See here too: Vacuum Energy.

 

In 1973' date=' Edward Tryon proposed that the Universe may be a large-scale quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy.[/quote']

 

 

That was the year of Watergate and the ceasefire in Vietnam.

 

 

Tryon speculates that the entire universe sprang from a large-scale vacuum energy fluctuation.

 

He describes a gravitational negative energy and positive energy which related to mass (two distinct forms of energy). The total of both energies exactly cancel, leaving the universe with zero energy. The conservation of energy according to the first law of thermodynamics remained intact.

 

The relation can be made between Guth’s "free lunch" and the concept of Tryon.

 

 

See also "false vacuum".

 

 

Skeptics may ask what is there left to say about real matter, real energy, the real vacuum, real fields, or a real meal. According to Guth’s restaurant, the egg, a big vacuous one, came before the chicken - epitomized by the false vacuum - and before the egg there was nothing: That’s one big egg. If there’s anything worth paying for and worth seeking out, it’s a decent freshly laid egg ;). But the language of eggs is as debased as the product of inflation, when the words chicken and “free lunch” have currency but no value.

 

 

Making noise in a crowded restaurant has become more valuable than making sense.

 

First, something (an egg?) has to hatch. Inside the first fraction of a second (inside the Plank scale) the chicken grows exponentially; with a mild dusting of blackened seasoning and a whiff of primordial cumin and pepper flavor, but the temperature of the chicken seems as if it sat too long under the heat lamp.

 

“Do not be afraid of simplicity. If you have a cold chicken for supper, why cover it with a tasteless white sauce which makes it look like a pretentious dish on the buffet table at some fancy dress ball?” (Quote: X. Marcel Boulestin, chef, food writer (1878-1943), Simple French Cooking for English Homes, 1923).

 

 

Actually, the real question that begs attention is not the old ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?' The new question is: what came before the chicken and the egg? Guth’s answer:

 

 

 

 

Nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

I must have lost the notes that I posted.

Coldcreation said

 

Actually, the real question that begs attention is not the old ‘what came first, the chicken or the egg?' The new question is: what came before the chicken and the egg. Guth’s answer:

 

Nothing.

 

 

So true.

 

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

 

Hello Maddog

 

What is your point?

 

One of the main issues in cosmology is the understanding of what is actually going on.

 

Jet formation is one of the most important processes, that can explain what happens to matter going in and out of the so called black holes.

 

One of the biggest problems is that we cannot see into a black hole. So we really on the properties of the jet to estimate whats in the core of a compact object.

 

Maddog said

 

However, you being a proponent or protagonist for cycling, I would expect you to

espouse the idea of spontaneous creation a Hoyle did in his Steady State theories

from back in the 50s.

 

The cyclic process does not create spontaneous matter from nothing.

 

Lets take the example of matter that is pulled into a compact object. Matter undergoes several phase changes, as we see in the formation of Neutron stars and the next phase or phases where neutron matter is broken down to quarkes and so on. These transients have been reorded to form jets via electromagnetic waves colliding and releasing huge amounts of matter. Most jets that form away from the core are quite unstable. The main jet that originates from the combination of the core and the accretion disc is the most stable that can remain in the same position for millions of years. This is one form of evidence that suggests that the main jet originates from the core or a combination with the disc. The other evidence is the degenerate matter that is ejected from the BH and the electromagnetic fields that form a stable evironment for the ejected matter to go deep into space affecting star formation and to the extent of influencing the form of galaxy clusters.

 

So what we have is matter going in and matter coming out as degenerate matter that reforms into normal matter. This is a simple cyclic process.

 

This process is well documented, its not my idea.

[maddog]

Relativistic poynting jets

arXiv.org Search

... [Continuation of this post]

Blandford-Znajek Mechanism

Meisner Effect

 

I found a link to a pdf of a powerpoint presentation by Max Camenzind that pretty well sums up (most)

of the papers you cited.

 

[/url]

http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/mcamenzi/Alba_Camenzind_II.pdf

 

I now understand a lot better how this process of Jets near BHs & especially why they along axis of spin

& why BH needs to be spinning for BZ Mechanism to work.

 

 

maddog

[REASON]

Jet formation is one of the most important processes, that can explain what happens to matter going in and out of the so called black holes.

 

I think it is totally improper to suggest that matter is going "in and out" of black holes.

 

How can matter escape where light cannot?

 

This has been addressed already. There is no evidence or information that I am aware of that suggests that these jets emanate from *within* active black holes. Your continually saying this as a means to support your theory does not make it so in reality. It is a false claim until you can support it with some sort of empirical evidence or mathematics.

[maddog]

What is your point?

 

One of the main issues in cosmology is the understanding of what is actually going on.

 

Jet formation is one of the most important processes, that can explain what happens to matter going in and out of the so called black holes.

 

One of the biggest problems is that we cannot see into a black hole. So we really on the properties of the jet to estimate whats in the core of a compact object.

Your text I marked in blue above is The truest and accurate statement I have read by you. However your text I marked in Red is not accurate, misleading and not quite true.

 

The properties of jets around Black Holes are outside phenomena. They infer nothing of the processes going in inside a hole. Basically you are completely prevented from doing this -- knowing Anything goin' on in there.

 

One exception (Quasi-Exception at that) would be by way of Berkenstein Conjecture (which I believe he won the bet from Hawking on this) that you can a bit of info from a Black Hole -- it's effective Temperature. That's it. Nothing else you already don't know (all effects known are outside).

 

Maddog said

However, you being a proponent or protagonist for cycling, I would expect you to espouse the idea of spontaneous creation a Hoyle did in his Steady State theories from back in the 50s.

The cyclic process does not create spontaneous matter from nothing.

It is rare when I find we agree, so I will make note of this for future reference. Like you then, I also don't subscribe nor agree with Hoyle about spontaneous creation of matter, with the caveat exception of vacuum fluctuations. You do still get this. This is a Quantum Mechanical effect and can happen. This though is not enough to make any "classical scale" matter.

 

Lets take the example of matter that is pulled into a compact object. Matter undergoes several phase changes, as we see in the formation of Neutron stars and the next phase or phases where neutron matter is broken down to quarkes and so on.

I am not aware of such a process as this would need increase gravity push past the Strong Force barrier to "freely" disassociate quarks into a quark plasma.

 

These transients have been reorded to form jets via electromagnetic waves colliding and releasing huge amounts of matter. Most jets that form away from the core are quite unstable.

This comment [i assume implying a "bow shock" as jet expands away from the Black Hole would be enough to create a quark plasma ??? I don't remember this implication in any of those 54 reference you listed earlier [though I may have missed one].

 

The main jet that originates from the combination of the core and the accretion disc is the most stable that can remain in the same position for millions of years. This is one form of evidence that suggests that the main jet originates from the core or a combination with the disc.

I don't think you have been reading those papers you listed. The Blandford-Znajek Mechanism mentioned in those papers clearly and specifically show how the accreting matter falling into the Black Hole is the source, the ionizing matter as it falls generates a hughe E-Field, moving charges generating the huge B-Field (magnetic field) and the twisting magnetic fields caused by the fact the Black Hole rotates send the jet flying out along the axis of spin (Only two jets BTW).

 

The other evidence is the degenerate matter that is ejected from the BH and the electromagnetic fields that form a stable evironment for the ejected matter to go deep into space affecting star formation and to the extent of influencing the form of galaxy clusters.

It is statements like this that begin to wonder what it is you are smoking... #%^& :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

 

I don't think you could give me a SPECIFIC "Reputable" Reference as to other evidence. I would require Reputable as I do not just accept any wild-*** website out there with some crazy idea. Science, not Fantasy. I wonder what you mean by degenerate matter and how it could possibly be ejected from the BH were that even possible [which it is NOT]. See I italicized the remaining part of the statement in that were it not part of the same sentence of the first part would be true. The forming Jet would and likely does effect or influence the environment surrounding the BH. Were this compact object as big as AGN then the whole of that galaxy would be effected. How though this would influence the evolution of galaxy clusters kind of escapes me yet I concede might be possible.

 

[conclusion]=So what we have is matter going in and matter coming out as degenerate matter that reforms into normal matter. This is a simple cyclic process.

This process is well documented, its not my idea.

This conclusion of yours is the smoke exiting some pipedream of your and has no basis in reality. Maybe you're just not getting it, I don't know.

 

No, this process is not documented any where but where you stated it and it is very much you idea and yours alone. :naughty: :eek_big: ;) :shrug:

 

Matter exiting en-masse from a black hole would cause to hole give up all its mass way more quickly than predicted causing a Contradiction. Maybe you need to think about this some more. :shrug:

 

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

You said

 

Your text I marked in blue above is The truest and accurate statement I have read by you. However your text I marked in Red is not accurate, misleading and not quite true.

 

The properties of jets around Black Holes are outside phenomena. They infer nothing of the processes going in inside a hole. Basically you are completely prevented from doing this -- knowing Anything goin' on in there.

 

One exception (Quasi-Exception at that) would be by way of Berkenstein Conjecture (which I believe he won the bet from Hawking on this) that you can a bit of info from a Black Hole -- it's effective Temperature. That's it. Nothing else you already don't know (all effects known are outside).

 

Mate, this is where I think that you nead to read up on the subject.

What makes you think that I want to misslead any of the information.

 

There are various theories as to the workings of jets. Most scientists allow the door to remain open in fear of being wrong.

 

As for Black holes and their properties, we lack information to actually determine the correct mechanisms, so we talk around the topic, trying to fit the puzzel together.

 

You said

 

I am not aware of such a process as this would need increase gravity push past the Strong Force barrier to "freely" disassociate quarks into a quark plasma.

 

Than make yourself aware.

 

 

But papers like this one gives us a better understanding:

 

[0808.0260] Absorption Properties and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

Absorption Properties and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

 

Authors: G. Hasinger (1 and 2) ((1) MPE Garching, (2) IfA Hawaii)

(Submitted on 2 Aug 2008)

 

Abstract: Intrinsic absorption is a fundamental physical property to understand the evolution of active galactic nuclei (AGN). Here a sample of 1290 AGN, selected in the 2-10 keV band from different flux-limited surveys with very high optical identification completeness is studied. The AGN are grouped into two classes, unabsorbed (type-1) and absorbed (type-2), depending on their optical spectroscopic classification and X-ray absorption properties, using hardness ratios. Utilizing the optical to X-ray flux ratios, a rough correction for the ~8% redshift incompleteness still present in the sample is applied. A strong decrease of the absorbed fraction with X-ray luminosity is found. This can be represented by an almost linear decrease from ~80% to ~20% in the luminosity range log L_X=42-46 and is consistent with similar derivations in the optical and MIR bands. A significant increase of the absorbed fraction with redshift is found, which can be described by a power law with a slope ~(1+z)^{0.62+/-0.11}, saturating at a redshift of z~2. A simple power law fit ~(1+z)^{0.48+/-0.08} over the whole redshift is also marginally consistent with the data. The variation of the AGN absorption with luminosity and redshift is described with higher statistical accuracy and smaller systematic errors than previous results. The findings have important consequences for the broader context of AGN and galaxy co-evolution. Here it is proposed that the cosmic downsizing in the AGN population is due to two different feeding mechanisms: a fast process of merger driven accretion at high luminosities and high redshifts versus a slow process of gas accretion from gravitational instabilities in galactic disks rebuilding around pre-formed bulges and black holes.

 

 

We have such a long way to go before we can say we understand the formation of compact objects and the jet formation.

 

 

Chandra and HST observations of gamma-ray blazars: comparing jet emission at small and large scales

Authors: F. Tavecchio, L. Maraschi, A. Wolter, C.C. Cheung, R.M. Sambruna, C.M. Urry

(Submitted on 14 Mar 2007)

Abstract: We present new Chandra and HST data for four gamma-ray blazars selected on the basis of radio morphology with the aim of revealing X-ray and optical emission from their jets at large scales. All the sources have been detected. Spectral Energy Distributions of the large scale jets are obtained as well as new X-ray spectra for the blazar cores. Modeling for each object the core (sub-pc scale) and large-scale (>100 kpc) jet SEDs, we derive the properties of the same jet at the two scales. The comparison of speeds and powers at different scales supports a simple scenario for the dynamics and propagation of high power relativistic jets.

 

 

My opinion at this moment is not important. I still have at least two more years of reading on this subject.

 

You said

 

It is statements like this that begin to wonder what it is you are smoking... #%^&

 

I don't think you could give me a SPECIFIC "Reputable" Reference as to other evidence. I would require Reputable as I do not just accept any wild-*** website out there with some crazy idea. Science, not Fantasy. I wonder what you mean by degenerate matter and how it could possibly be ejected from the BH were that even possible [which it is NOT]. See I italicized the remaining part of the statement in that were it not part of the same sentence of the first part would be true. The forming Jet would and likely does effect or influence the environment surrounding the BH. Were this compact object as big as AGN then the whole of that galaxy would be effected. How though this would influence the evolution of galaxy clusters kind of escapes me yet I concede might be possible.

 

This statement tells me that you have not read up on the subject.

 

I do not invent the information and the papers are not isolated.

 

Ask me what part and papers that you want to read.

 

Properties of jets are well documented. I do not have to feed that information.

 

But! I will later.

[coldcreation]

I don't think you could give me a SPECIFIC "Reputable" Reference as to other evidence. I would require Reputable as I do not just accept any wild-*** website out there with some crazy idea. Science, not Fantasy. I wonder what you mean by degenerate matter and how it could possibly be ejected from the BH were that even possible [which it is NOT]. [...]

 

No, this process is not documented any where but where you stated it and it is very much you idea and yours alone.

 

Matter exiting en-masse from a black hole would cause to hole give up all its mass way more quickly than predicted causing a Contradiction. Maybe you need to think about this some more.

 

maddog

 

 

Check this out: How Black Holes Both Consume and Eject Material

 

January 5' date=' 2005 :: With the announcement of the most powerful eruption ever witnessed in the Universe in the galaxy cluster MS 0735.6+7421, astronomers are seeing that how supermassive black holes eject matter is just as interesting as how they consume it.

 

This discovery, as is often the case, leads to more questions: How can black holes eject so much energy and material? Have similar eruptions been seen, or is this some sort a cosmic loner? What does it teach us about supermassive black holes and about the galaxies where they reside?

 

To begin with, it sounds illogical that black holes could even generate massive eruptions. After all, hasn't it always been said that nothing, not even light, can escape a black hole? This remains true, but only when matter passes inside the "event horizon" of a black hole. ..."

 

Matter that gets close to a black hole but remains outside the event horizon can undergo a very different experience and is sometimes expelled in violent jets. Such jets, probably originating from an energetic, magnetized, spinning disk around the supermassive black hole, produced the enormous cavities seen in MS 0735. ...

 

[/quote']

 

 

Or this one: Black holes give as well as take

 

Black holes are well known for their ability to swallow matter' date=' but now a group of astronomers in the US has found evidence that they might emit substantial amounts of matter as well. George Chartas of Penn State University and colleagues have discovered that quasars – star-like objects that are thought to be fuelled by supermassive black holes – eject significant quantities of gas into space, including elements such as carbon, oxygen and iron.

 

[...']

 

The results, which were presented yesterday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Quebec, come from data obtained by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton satellite.

 

 

There are many other links similar to the above, some of which may already have been posted by Pluto.

 

So it appears possible that Pluto may be correct, or, at least, he has not yet been proven wrong.

 

In fact, evidence seems to support what he is citing. Whether the ejected material is degenerate or not I do not know. I too have more research to do. :hyper:

 

As far as wether material is expelled from inside or outside of an event horizon has little relevance, since the process of ejection (if indeed that is what's taking place) is still operational from within a vicinity where gravitational spacetime curvature is exceedingly pronounced.

 

Edit: As long as the ejected material observed is outside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole there is no reason why the material could not be degenerate. No degeneracy state can occur within the event horizon (I think Pluto would agree).

 

 

See more articles on the topic here.

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day coldcreation.

 

I sometimes feel that I'm alone in trying to understand, what the hell is going on out there.

 

Yes I have read the links you posted. Thank you for making me read them again.

 

These papers are quite interesting.

 

[physics/0107027] Induced Gravity in the Short Range

Induced Gravity in the Short Range

 

Authors: C.P.Kouropoulos

(Submitted on 13 Jul 2001 (v1), last revised 9 Aug 2001 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We consider a pair of harmonic oscillators in two or three dimensions of space coupled by the standard electrodynamic forces : the Coulomb, the Lorentz and the electrokinetic forces. The addition of the Lorentz force is mainly felt in the short range and suppresses the radial correlated oscillating mode of such coupled oscillators. This imposes constraints on the system that make the two transverse modes degenerate. As a result, an 1/r antigravitational interaction now appears in the surviving anticorrelated radial zero-mode, which does not allow coherent states to form. As gravitation can only emerge from coherent modes, it can no longer be transitive. Matter in high densities would thus tend to increase its disorder, decouple from its own gravity, from the ordering far infrared Machian background that coheres its rest energy and would become intrinsically unstable. The highly energetic jets from galactic nuclei could be the consequence.[/QUOTE]

 

 

and

 

[0708.2263] The SN 1987A Link to Others and Gamma-Ray Bursts

The SN 1987A Link to Others and Gamma-Ray Bursts

 

Authors: John Middleditch

(Submitted on 16 Aug 2007 (v1), last revised 6 Feb 2008 (this version, v8))

 

Abstract: Early measurements of SN 1987A can be interpreted in light of a beam/jet (BJ), with a collimation factor >10,000, which impacted polar ejecta (PE) to produce the "Mystery Spot" (MS), ~24 lt-d away. Other details of SN 1987A suggest that it came from a merger of 2 stellar cores of a common envelope (CE) binary, i.e. a "double degenerate" (DD) SN. Even having to penetrate the CE, the BJ may have caused a long-soft (l)GRB upon hitting the PE, thus DD can produce lGRBs. Because DD must be the dominant merger/SN mechanism in elliptical galaxies (EGs), where only short, hard GRBs (sGRBs) have been observed, DD without CE or PE must also produce sGRBs, and thus NS-NS mergers may not make GRBs as we know them, and/or be as common as previously thought. Millisecond pulsars (MSPs) in the non-core-collapsed globular clusters are also 99% DD-formed from WD-WD merger, consistent with their 2.10 ms minimum spin period, the 2.14 ms signal seen from SN 1987A, and sGRBs offset from the centers of EGs. The details of Ia's suggest that these are also DD, and the total thermonuclear disruption paradigm is now in serious doubt as well, a cause for concern in Ia Cosmology, because Ia's will appear to be Ic's when viewed from their DD merger poles, given sufficient matter above that lost to core-collapse. As a DD SN, 1987A appears to be the Rosetta Stone for 99% of SNe, GRBs and MSPs, including all recent nearby SNe except SN 1986J, and the more distant SN 2006gy. There is no need to invent exotica, such as "collapsars," to account for GRBs.

 

 

and

 

[0811.0874] Solitons and vortices in an evolving Bose-Einstein condensate

Solitons and vortices in an evolving Bose-Einstein condensate

 

Authors: Shi-Jie Yang, Quan-Sheng Wu, Shiping Feng, Yu-Chuan Wen, Yue Yu

(Submitted on 6 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: Spatiotemporal evolution of a confined Bose-Einstein condensate is studied by numerically integrating the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Self-interference between the successively expanding and reflecting nonlinear matter waves results in spiral atomic density profile, which subsequently degenerates into an embedding structure: The inner part preserves memory of the initial states while the outer part forms a sequence of necklacelike rings. The phase plot reveals a series of discrete concentric belts. The large gradients between adjacent belts indicate that the ring density notches are dark solitons. In the dynamical process, a scenario of vortex-antivortex pairs are spontaneously created and annihilated, whereas the total vorticity keeps invariant.

 

 

The depth of this subject is extremely interesting.

 

The more I read I find that the so called main stream thinkers have been left out in the cold as in the dark ages. Than again: Whats a main stream thinker?. Is there any out there?

 

 

Coldcreation said

 

There are many other links similar to the above, some of which may already have been posted by Pluto.

 

So it appears possible that Pluto may be correct, or, at least, he has not yet been proven wrong.

 

In fact, evidence seems to support what he is citing. Whether the ejected material is degenerate (Edit: see Degenerate Matter[/url) or not I do not know. I too have more research to do.

 

As far as wether material is expelled from inside or outside of an event horizon has little relevance, since the process of ejection (if indeed that is what's taking place) is still operational from within a vicinity where gravitational spacetime curvature is exceedingly pronounced.

 

Edit: As long as the ejected material observed is outside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole there is no reason why the material could not be degenerate. No degeneracy state can occur within the event horizon (I think Pluto would agree).

 

 

Thank you for the support, but! credit goes to the scientists who research the darn things.

 

Tell me why you think that no degeneracy state occurs within the so called event horizon. Is there a sign that says keep out?

 

As for event horizon, I see compact matter forming trapping horizons.

 

The vector forces during the infalling direction prevents any EMR from escaping.

 

The matter is already degenerate and the final form of degeneracy compaction is the issue that maybe the LHC can resolve.

 

The degenerate matter within the compact core BH creates an unstable environment created by the electromagnetic wave collision. In actual fact the instability creates a stable vortex that not only ejects matter out but keeps it in an electromagnetic field vortex that can remain stable from the kick off point to millions of light years altering the form of the galaxy and near by galaxies, ie a cluster ajuster reforming galaxies.

 

 

One of the topics that I'm reading is on Degenerate matter and jet formation. Darn reading never stops.

[modest]

Check this out: How Black Holes Both Consume and Eject Material

 

Your link says:

Matter that gets close to a black hole but remains outside the event horizon can undergo a very different experience and is sometimes expelled in violent jets. Such jets, probably originating from an energetic, magnetized, spinning disk around the supermassive black hole, produced the enormous cavities seen in MS 0735

 

which is inconsistent with Pluton's claim that matter escapes from inside the center of black holes.

 

Likewise, the link:

Or this one: Black holes give as well as take

says,

Theorists have predicted that light emitted by quasars should act as a kind of wind, blowing gas from the accretion disc that surrounds a quasar’s black hole into intergalactic space.

Again, not from inside the horizon. It's also notable that this link was written in 2003 and we've learned a lot about QSOs since then.

 

Your final link:

And this one: Black Hole recycles to form fresh stars and planets

 

Is no doubt an honest mistake as you weren't (or this online journal wasn't) checking out the source. The "Doctor" referenced in the article (I won't use his name because I don't want him following a google search here) has invented an alternative cosmology including 21 types of black holes that he hopes will prove god is the primeval spirit existing in the center of the atmosphere of the universe. He's written no peer reviewed articles,

This theory explains how the Primeval Particle or Primeval Spirit or 'The Creator' became active at the center of Space scientifically and expanded in the eternal space and created uncounted universes, and thereafter inculcated life and energy throughout the eternal space with His genius intelligence. The explanation is complicated. However...

 

source

 

Pluto's claims that matter *must* eject from inside a black holes are unsupported and his condescending posts toward anyone who disagrees with him are very rude.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

Modest said

 

Pluto's claims that matter *must* eject from inside a black holes are unsupported and his condescending posts toward anyone who disagrees with him are very rude.

 

Excuse me, where is the rude part?

 

What I see is a moderator who wants his claim to overide another.

 

You say, that my ideas are unsupported. It looks like you have not read the links that I have posted. Not only that, my posting has been in depth.

 

If you wish to lock me out of this forum, than so be it, but for what ever reason?

 

I have locked myself out for 2 weeks.

[coldcreation]

Your final link:

 

Is no doubt an honest mistake as you weren't (or this online journal wasn't) checking out the source. ...

 

Damm, that's some weird sh_t.

 

I will delete that link right now. Thanks for checking the source modest.

 

More soon...

 

 

CC

[maddog]

Mate, this is where I think that you nead to read up on the subject. What makes you think that I want to misslead any of the information.

Well I have read more than half the 54 papers you listed already (at least perused them). NONE of those Papers, I REPEAT, NONE mentioned / implied that Matter, {Real Matter} could come from Inside a Black Hole to Outside. NONE!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

So this implies to me you gather some papers that sound good, don't read them and then make Conclusion regardless!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: <-- Modest has already stated this above to you. The Jets you mention are an outside process. Your 54 papers say so.

The Main Driving mechanism is the Blandford-Znajek Mechanism.

 

Just read the papers with that in the title before you jabber on again this subject. Not doing so just shows your blatant ignorance.

 

You mislead by being completely ignorant about the Laws of physics. I don't think intentionally, just stupidly ! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

 

I guess from on, I Must be very blunt with you, no other way matters.

There are various theories as to the workings of jets. Most scientists allow the door to remain open in fear of being wrong.

This is ONLY true when no physical laws support said statements {like yours}.

As for Black holes and their properties, we lack information to actually determine the correct mechanisms, so we talk around the topic, trying to fit the puzzel together.

Only one "talking around" the subject here is YOU!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

I am not aware of such a process as this would need increase gravity push past the Strong Force barrier to "freely" disassociate quarks into a quark plasma.

Than make yourself aware.

This was a REALLY Nice way of saying there NO F***in' Way (NFW) ... get it !!!

of matter being eject out from INSIDE a Black Hole NFW...

We have such a long way to go before we can say we understand the formation of compact objects and the jet formation.

Your claim, not supported by your papers. What appears though is maybe going are multiple processes in ejection (ALL are Outside Processes -- OUTSIDE!!!).

My opinion at this moment is not important.

Another statement of truism by you, again, a rarity.

This statement tells me that you have not read up on the subject.

I do not invent the information and the papers are not isolated. Ask me what part and papers that you want to read. Properties of jets are well documented. I do not have to feed that information.

You INVENT You CONCLUSION !!! WHICH IS WRONG !!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :evil: :eek:

 

This presumption on your part that you understand and then state a Bunch of CRAP!!

-- as though it is True!!! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: This is why people are taking you as being RUDE! I am beginning to take you Condescending attitude as being that way myself!!

:naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

 

maddog

[modest]

Damm, that's some weird sh_t.

 

I will delete that link right now. Thanks for checking the source modest.

 

More soon...

 

 

CC

 

No problem—like I said, an honest mistake, and I think the Journal made the mistake, not you.

 

You mislead by being completely ignorant about the Laws of physics. I don't think intentionally, just stupidly !

 

I know it can be frustrating, Maddog. But, as a moderator, I need to say that attacking other members is against the rules. You've done a great job of reviewing the scientific literature and making a reasoned argument and I really hope you continue to do so.

 

If you see a case where Pluto is making unsupported claims or failing to follow one of the other rules, then report the post and the other moderators and myself will work on the problem behind the scenes :(

 

~modest