maddog Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 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. :( 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).Cold Creation, I take exception with the statement Pluto made. Basically [paraphrased] matter from within a Black Hole is the source of material for the jets. Categorically Impossible. To do so would requiring exceeding speed light © -- thus violates SR. Isn't gonna' happen. So the Inside/Outside question has great relevance. Were Pluto to have actually read his 54 papers, he (or anyone) would see the process of creating jets near Black Holes is an OUTSIDE Phenomenon ! The papers listed refer to a Blandford-Znajek Mechanism for generating the jets. It is with that Pluto makes the crass comment, that I haven't read the material. Excuse me if that gets my ire up. Since I first started studying Black Holes back in 1971, I learned that the Event Horizon is an impenetrable barrier. Even light cannot escape a Black Hole's Event Horizon, thenhow could something which is bound by it ?? :) maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Excuse me, where is the rude part?The rude part is telling me to the material, after I am showing you with the body of those 54 papers is the basis for my refutation of your statement "Jet material come from within the Black Hole itself" [paraphrase]. That is DAMN RUDE !!!!! :) :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: 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.You are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging the error you have made. You say you have "locked yourself out for 2 weeks" ... ??? :eek_big: Well if you do come back, please describe me one thing --- That is THE Reference to the evidence where you CLAIM that Jet's material comes from within (that is inside) a Black Hole (this is of any size).I require the SPECIFIC Reference (paper citation, page #). I am no longer willing to trash this website by allowing you to make unfounded claims. I rebut the statement. :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :( maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 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.You comments which I highlighted are the misstatements orERROR in the argument [were these an argument at all]. These are completely in error. Error because they imply matter (with mass) can be ejected out of a Black Hole. Totally fallacious. The matter comes from outside via the Blandford-Znajek Mechanism described within the body of the 54 papers you cited. Look it up. maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 You mislead by being completely ignorant about the Laws of physics. I don't think intentionally, just stupidly ! :) :naughty: :naughty: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 :(I went back an reread my posts and I feel I am innocent of any violation of the rules of Hypography. I have not spoken foully. I brought back my the statement you quoted. If you read it, I am only describing the misleading methodology in which Pluto is speaking so as to mislead / cajole / misrepresent the topic. I have no problem with Pluto desiring to understand how jets form near Black Holes. Ido have a problem when someone attempts create the environment of some falsehood as being bonafide, truthful and valid. I have a problem with that. My previous post went back and captured "exactly what Pluto said" which was just sloughed off. Now implying that Black Holes eject matter is an asinine comment. It is not true. Violates SR among other things. I have gone back and reread a lot of his posts. I see where he definitely doesn't think things through. Yet like Einstein said, "to do something over and over again, expecting the different results is insane!" This in ignoring where I have shone that Pluto's statement does that is quite what Einstein is saying. I am not going as far as to say what Forest Gump said though. If I do, let me know. I am completely with you in stating that Pluto needs to state his case and Show how his statements are valid. This he has not done. I would be fine if he just qualified it even as just being a conjecture or an opinion on his part. :naughty: maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I went back an reread my posts and I feel I am innocent of any violation of the rules of Hypography. Statements such as: You mislead by being completely ignorant about the Laws of physics. I don't think intentionally, just stupidly ! are considered offensive. A general rule of thumb is to attack the post, not the poster. In other words, it's ok to say "I think your idea is stupid" (though that's still rude) but it's not ok to say "I think you are stupid". As Modest said, if you have a problem with a poster, please report it and let us handle it. Thanks! :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I went back an reread my posts and I feel I am innocent of any violation of the rules of Hypography. Just headin' off any potential trouble. :naughty: You are justifiably frustrated. Freeztar's advice above is good. :) I would be fine if he just qualified it even as just being a conjecture or an opinion on his part. :( This is a really good idea. Pluto, it would really help if you said something along the lines of "I think jets might originate inside compact objects", rather than saying they definitely do originate at the center of the black hole and these papers... prove it. I think that would really make for better discussion all-around. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 No problem—like I said, an honest mistake, and I think the Journal made the mistake, not you. ~modest The online Journal made no mistake. As it turns out, the person in question is the 'Chairman of Media' of that journal (as I understand: I did a little follow-up research on the source). He writes anything he wants and puts it online. It was my mistake not to have checked it out before typing in the link. CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 The online Journal made no mistake. As it turns out, the person in question is the 'Chairman of Media' of that journal (as I understand: I did a little follow-up research on the source). He writes anything he wants and puts it online. That makes sense I tell ya, you can't trust much anymore :D Here in the states newspaper reporters are dropping like flies because people are reading everything online. I hate to think the same is happening with scientific journals, and honest journalists who report science news, but I bet it is. :( ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 are considered offensive. A general rule of thumb is to attack the post, not the poster. In other words, it's ok to say "I think your idea is stupid" (though that's still rude) but it's not ok to say "I think you are stupid".:)I do understand the difference. I was only in my statement saying the repeatedly making statements as though they are true ignoring the laws of physics (especially without backup) is an implication of stupidity. I will endeavor to be more clear. I do not wish to violate any rules of discussion nor do I wish to make aspersions on anyone. I do presume that logic be used in the discussions. Maybe if we locked this thread, it has Really been beat to Death !! :eek_big: I appreciate you efforts and glad that we have moderators. This place would be a free-for-all otherwise. maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I just saw an article about Naked Singularities in the current Scientific American. From what I remember these versions of Black Holes were thought "Taboo" or not possible. In the condition that Pluto was alluding to -- where the "inside" can become "outside" or the "inside" leaking out would then be viable. I think this is worthy of a new thread so I will read the article start a new thread on Naked Singularities there. I consider this thread dead. Sayonara. B) :shrug: :naughty: maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I went back... I feel... I am innocent...I have not...I brought back... I am only... I have no problem... I do have a problem... I have a problem... I have gone... I see where... I have shone...I am not going...If I do...I am completely... I would be fine...I do understand...I was only in my... I will endeavor... I do not wish...I wish...I do presume...I appreciate you... I just saw...I remember...I think this...I will read...I consider this... Sayonara.maddog "I still look at myself and want to improve." (David Beckham) CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Originally Posted by maddog I went back... I feel... I am innocent...I have not...I brought back... I am only... I have no problem... I do have a problem... I have a problem... I have gone... I see where... I have shone...I am not going...If I do...I am completely... I would be fine...I do understand...I was only in my... I will endeavor... I do not wish...I wish...I do presume...I appreciate you... I just saw...I remember...I think this...I will read...I consider this... Sayonara.maddogHow quaint, o' little maddog poetry... :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 How quaint, o' little maddog poetry... :steering: "Yes; quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down you'd treat if met where any bar is, or help to half-a-crown." (Thomas Hardy) "Medieval justice was a quaint thing." (Frederick Pollock) CC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I just saw an article about Naked Singularities in the current Scientific American. From what I remember these versions of Black Holes were thought "Taboo" or not possible. In the condition that Pluto was alluding to -- where the "inside" can become "outside" or the "inside" leaking out would then be viable. I think this is worthy of a new thread so I will read the article start a new thread on Naked Singularities there. I consider this thread dead. Sayonara. :winter_brr: maddogNot just yet. After reading part of the SciAm article I thought I would at least make a modest retraction. According to the article many scientists are now considering the possibility of Naked Singularities as viable. This goes against what I so adamantly said earlier about nothing getting from inside out. So I now retract that statement as stated (or modify to have a new exception of a Naked Singularity). I personally don't see how these can form, though I will withhold judgment until I have fully read the article and done a little searching. Then I will make the thread on it. :steering: :) maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moadib Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 What if the other side of a black hole was a white hole? The black hole sucking in matter and spewing it out at another point, would cause a quick expansion, a slowing then a reacceleration as matter is spewed from the white hole and drawn back to the black. The result a donut space universe....mmmmmm donuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 posted by moadibWhat if the other side of a black hole was a white hole? The black hole sucking in matter and spewing it out at another point, would cause a quick expansion, a slowing then a reacceleration as matter is spewed from the white hole and drawn back to the black. The result a donut space universe....mmmmmm donuts from Wiki Schwarzschild wormholes Embedded diagram of a Schwarzschild wormhole.Lorentzian wormholes known as Schwarzschild wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges are bridges between areas of space that can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations by combining models of a black hole and a white hole. This solution was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off instantly as soon as it forms, preventing even light from making it through. Before the stability problems of Schwarzschild wormholes were apparent, it was proposed that quasars were white holes forming the ends of wormholes of this type. While Schwarzschild wormholes are not traversable, their existence inspired Kip Thorne to imagine traversable wormholes created by holding the 'throat' of a Schwarzschild wormhole open with exotic matter (material that has negative mass/energy).Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moadib Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 At the point in time of the big bang all matter/energy would have been moving very fast does anyone know of a study or 2 on the effect that Einstiens theory of relitivity would have on the time aspect during the 1st few days after the big bang? And thanx Pamela exactly what i was looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.