 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 04/30/2008 8:00:18 AM PDT by RightWhale
Cheers!
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
<>Because the waves are emitted mainly in one direction, the black hole itself is pushed in the opposite direction</>
</></>
I wonder why they favor one direction. I would think they radiate symmetrically. Something to do with their final point of impact perhaps?
Based on your reasoning, there are no solid objects at all. No rocks, no asteroids, no moons, no planets, no stars, no galaxies, no nothing. Just motes of dust floating in empty space separated from each other by miles in every direction.
Glad I somehow could piece enough of those motes together to come up with this here keyboard...
I was going to post the same thing. Anyone want to do the relatively easy math? How much energy is required to accelerate the mass of 100,000,000 of our suns, to 2650 kilometers per second? It boggles the mind..
The effect that sends the black hole out of the galaxy is more akin to the column of liquid which pops up when an object is dropped into a calm pool of liquid (perhaps water for ease of comparison) ... the popped up column is a recoil from the object slamming into the pool. Now, the interesting hidden question is ‘what is the recoil pushing against, what IS inertia in spacetime?’ From contemplating this notion I haved conjectured that what came first in the big bang event were all ‘black holes’, a froth of black holes caused by merging dimension space and dimension time, which caused mass to wink into existence carrying a little bit of time and a little bit of space as the ‘remnant’ of the black hole which spawned the speck of mass, thus mass is the shadow of the original froth.
How anybody believe that gravity would ever hold galaxies together given that or how anybody believes black holes would ever form up via gravity given that strikes me as a collosal mystery.
But you can apply that same logic to stars. How did stars form? How did planets form? If you say black holes can’t be explained by gravity then what about all other massive objects.
All a black hole is (in most cases) is a star that started out larger than a certain size (2 or 3 times larger than our sun? I forget) and then when it burned out collapsed to a black hole.
Our sun exits, right? It’s going to burn out, right? What’s left eventually will be some kind of dwarf star, right?
Why do you deny that the same thing will happen to larger stars? But they won’t just collapse to dwarfs, they’ll collapse “all the way down”.
To deny black holes is to deny the existence of stars.
Are you doing that?
Is this all maya? Just a curtain of illusion? There’s no there there? Is that what you’re saying?
Not by gravity. Best theory I've read recently indicates that all aglomerations of mass in the universe are via the so-called z-pinch effect of Birkland currents moving through plasmas. Unlike dark matter, plasma is real and apparently constitutes ninety nine point something of the mass of the universe.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/goodspeed.htm
(big snip)
So let’s understand this, very clearly — scientists have never “seen” black holes. They’ve seen (unanticipated) energetic effects that they imagine can only be caused by the in-fall of matter, i.e. a theoretical black hole “sucking” and “consuming “ everything around it due to its supposed (but impossible) near -infinite gravity. Popular discussion of black holes can only be described as disingenuous in the extreme. The contradictory, unexpected observations are routinely presented as evidence confirming black holes’ existence! The improbable jets have never had a reasonable place within gravitational dogma, a fact rarely, if ever, acknowledged in scientific media.
But the abstract and purely mathematical reasoning that led to black holes is wholly unnecessary, according to proponents of the Plasma Universe and Electric Universe. Far from the spotlight of media attention, plasma cosmologists did anticipate many of the “surprising” discoveries of the space age, with no requirement of invisible, non-testable material and objects and mathematical models involving imaginary infinities...
$4 to read the remainder.
Wendy. No matter how the stars formed (and this is the FIRST time I’ve ever heard of “not by gravity”, but whatever) they all now EXIST. Including our sun.
What happens to a star BY GRAVITY as its fuel burns out and its crushing weight is no longer counterbalanced by the nuclear reactions of its interior?
Session B1 - Astrophysics and Gravity.
New Star Birth Mechanism Defies Astronomers' Expectations - A ...
Star Formation, Life, and Death
Magnetic Fields Crucial To Star Formation, Astronomer Says
(And yet even in this article, note the key importance of gravity.)
Wapedia - Wiki: Stellar evolution
Stellar Old Age (III): Gravitational Collapse
Stellar Evolution: World of Earth Science
Astronomy HyperText Book: Stellar Evolution
Stellar Evolution - Black Holes
ACE Cosmology and Stellar Evolution
In any of the articles I just posted, just search for the word “gravit” (which will yield both “gravity” and “gravitational”, as in some of the articles, the discussion of the role of gravity in stellar formation and evolution is not right at the top of the article.
or, KE=1/2mv^2
I don't think we can solve this because we don't know how LONG it took to accelerate the BH from an assumed initial velocity of zero to 2650 km/sec. Also, the article claimed the BH had a mass of *several* hundred million solar masses. In any case, we would never need to use Einstein's E=MC^2 for a strickly mechanical problem such as this. E=MC^2 has to do with nuclear reactions.
I found this similar example below on the web. You will probably have to use your zoom to see the tiny formulas. They were separate .gifs that I had to insert as images, so I couldn't enlarge them.
FWD...
Kinetic Energy
The work done on an object involves the force exerted on it, which by Newton's 2nd law [F=ma] can be related to the acceleration produced. Let us use this in the definition of work:
The acceleration in turn implies a change in velocity. One defines a quantity called the kinetic energy of an object as
with which one can show that
Kinetic energy (and as we shall later see, all forms of "energy") has the units of work, which are Joules. Thus, the work done on any object goes into changing the kinetic energy of that object.
As an example, we can calculate the power of a 1000 kg sports car that can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/hr in 10 seconds. In order to be able to get our answer directly in Joules we first convert the speed to m/s.
Since the work done by the car engine is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the car, we have that
The corresponding power in watts is obtained by dividing the work done in Joules by elapsed time, so that the power is 386,000/10 = 38,600 watts. In terms of horsepower, we see that the car has 38,600/746 = 53 hp. In a real car, much of the work done by the engine goes into overcoming friction and air resistance, so that a 53 hp engine will not produce the type of acceleration mentioned in this idealized example.
Now that we know that work changes kinetic energy, it is possible to give another interpretation to the notion of negative work. Positive work done on an object increases its kinetic energy, as stated above, whereas negative work will decrease its kinetic energy. This is also made clear by our previous example of negative work: if you push against a car that is rolling towards you in order to slow it down, you are indeed decreasing its kinetic energy.
You're correct, Wendy. If left to gravity alone, it isn't very likely that material in our sparse universe would ever just collapse in on itself to form stars. Rather, stars are most often formed in the arms of spiral galaxies where powerful density shock waves sweep vast amounts of gas and dust together. They also form in large numbers when shock waves from 'nearby' super nova explosions abruptly sweep and concentrate material (previously existing gas and dust) together. Our sun is thought to have formed in this way (via nearby supernova exposion). Once the material is forced together (by either mechanism) it then ultimately collapses under gravity and nuclear reactions later on ignite the star. However, the gas and dust must initially be very cold or else the heat would tend to force the material apart and prevent it from collapsing. Other stars suspected to have formed in the same event with our sun are most of the stars in the Big Dipper and, possibly, the brightest star in the entire night sky, Sirius. Astronomers think all of these, plus some other stars we can see by eye, are part of the same star cluster (an 'open' cluster, as opposed to a much denser 'globular' cluster). They think this because these stars are all basically moving in the same direction and speed.
Are there other forces involved in the particular mechanics of star formation that we happen to observe locally? Yes. Magnetism seems to be one.
But can star formation happen without gravity? Of course not.
Is gravity the major component of star formation? Of course it is?
What other mechanism do you propose for hydrogen atoms to remain clumped together (no matter how they happen to be blown about by magnetism) other than gravity?
Please provide links. Without links, both you and Wendy are blowing in the wind, like UFO’ers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
