Scientist:neutron stars,not black holes, center of galaxies

nojocujo · Dec 15, 2005

Another nice way of putting it! An idiot is as an idiot does. Must be the barn dain bramage. Dain surgeon said he didn't take anythink out! He took pictures though! Mine was smooth like a babies butt!

rlb2 · Dec 16, 2005

Here is an artilce where a black hole swallowed the bulk of the neutron star in one gulp.. A distant eruption of high-energy gamma rays is evidence for a black hole swallowing another dense object called a neutron star, astronomers announced today. Scientists have long suspected collisions between these objects are common. Other recent bursts have looked similar, but observations from NASA's orbiting Swift satellite and other telescopes, recorded July 24 and reported in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Nature, are the most detailed. Astronomers speculated about what might have happened. "For billions of years, this black hole and neutron star orbited each other in a gravitational tug-of-war," said Scott Barthelmy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. "The neutron star lost." The flash of gamma rays lasted just a few milliseconds. Afterglows of X-rays, radio waves, visible and infrared light were detected thereafter. The afterglows are an important clue. Barthelmy and colleagues figure the neutron star was stretched into a crescent shape as "crumbs" broke off. The black hole might have swallowed the bulk of the neutron star in one gulp, while the other chunks were consumed in the hours that followed. Each bite generated radiation. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051214_star_collision.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

siriusmre · Dec 16, 2005

This one little snippet of an article on a "mainstream" space Web site shows exactly the type of uncertainty and guess-work that is often presented as known fact. Even some of the base assumptions made have not been rigorously tested for falsification. "A distant eruption of high-energy gamma rays is evidence for a black hole swallowing another dense object called a neutron star, astronomers announced today." It's evidence of something, alright. It's evidence for that sci-fi-sounding hypothesis only if one has a one-dimensional view of what might cause these phenomena in the first place; only if one *knows* that gravity tells the whole story of space. "Scientists have long suspected collisions between these objects are common. Other recent bursts have looked similar, but observations from NASA's orbiting Swift satellite and other telescopes, recorded July 24 and reported in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Nature, are the most detailed. Astronomers speculated about what might have happened." Suspicions and speculations? It's a good thing that they have a firm grasp of the facts. "'For billions of years, this black hole and neutron star orbited each other in a gravitational tug-of-war,' said Scott Barthelmy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 'The neutron star lost.' The flash of gamma rays lasted just a few milliseconds. Afterglows of X-rays, radio waves, visible and infrared light were detected thereafter." It's a good thing that real astronomers do not state theortical dogma as fact. "The afterglows are an important clue. Barthelmy and colleagues figure the neutron star was stretched into a crescent shape as 'crumbs' broke off. The black hole might have swallowed the bulk of the neutron star in one gulp, while the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nojocujo · Dec 17, 2005

It was published in several Journals. Scientists using the NASA Swift satellite have found evidence of a black hole swallowing a neutron star. The discovery is reported in the December 15 issue of the journal Nature. http://uplink.space.com/newreply.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=407035&page=0&view=collapsed&what=showflat&sb=5&o=0&fpart=all&vc=1 This snippet comes from the Penn State Swift website. I think there is a reference to Chandra and Keck telescopes seeing the same event! Chandra for the xrays associated with the event which establishes something more massive and Keck not seeing the black hole but the afterglow. They think it was an inspiral and as such not energetic or close enough for Ligo.

nexium · Dec 17, 2005

Hypothesis better describes most astronomy theories, and most concepts are unproven more than 1% of a light year away. We should all state what little pitiful evidence there is instead of infering my evidence is better than your evidence. My astronomy training is restricted to the type I can get at www.space.com so I frequently type "I guess" or "the main stream opinion is" Nuetron star at the center of the galaxy instead of a black hole will have a tough time making it to mainstream. Neil

rlb2 · Dec 17, 2005

This one little snippet of an article on a "mainstream" space Web site shows exactly the type of uncertainty and guess-work that is often presented as known fact. Even some of the base assumptions made have not been rigorously tested for falsification. Truth or Myth. A snippd from some of the experts in the field who got together with other experts in their field to write a paper that is or will be published about their claims. When you do this you put your reputation on the line, which I have a great deal of respect for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

bonzelite · Dec 17, 2005

"A distant eruption of high-energy gamma rays is evidence for a black hole swallowing another dense object called a neutron star, astronomers announced today." as well, it can also be evidence for bozo the clown making animal balloons at a child's birthday party if all the astronomers are expecting that.

yevaud · Dec 17, 2005

Nexium: Yeah, that's about right, I think. I suppose the best way I can state it for the "opposing viewpoint" here is that there are theories, which are called that - with minor tweaks as the unexpected manifests - as the observations we have so far (directly and indirectly) conform to the theories. Were there no solid observations, the concept would, yes, still be a hypothesis (because there would be no observation to help "prove" the hypothesis, and so make it a theory). Which is to say here, the presence of a neutron star does not explain what we observe in Galactic Centers, wherever we look. The theories state there will be a Singularity of ridiculously large mass, and our observations are more-or-less what we expected to see. Look at how powerful the Polar Jets and other various energetic outputs we've observed are. To explain this, we have to account for what's causing the energetic output in the first place. And a Neutron Star with sufficient gravitation, e.g. mass sufficient to do so, is far over the Swarzchild Limit. Which defaults right back to a Singularity. The Swarzchild Limit is unarguable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Dec 18, 2005

depends on your angle of attack, so to speak.

yevaud · Dec 18, 2005

I don't know. How do you get around that mass=gravitation=energetic output quandry? Seems to me, no matter how it's worked, a Neutron Star is insufficient. That output I mentioned isn't appearing out of thin... well, vacuum. Something is causing it. And a Neutron Star producing what's been observed is rather like expecting a firecracker to produce a 10-Megaton explosion. Look at the mass difference between a Neutron Star and a Million-star mass Singularity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 18, 2005

First of all, you use just about every obvious fallacy in the book. The belief that nothing can penetrate the event horizon in a black hole is a fallacy. Particles and photons of all kinds can fall into a black hole. To believe otherwise is contrary to the laws of physics. Time dilation, both from velocity and gravitational field, is a well established fact. You haven't shown me anything contrary to that. Maybe it's there, but you'll have to explain it. To state that you know what happens insie a black hole, past the event horizon, when no one can observe it, is yet another fallacy. I made no such statement, in fact what I said was that I don't know what happens inside an event horizion, if it exists. Please do not put words in my mouth so you can argue against them. I have trouble enough defending my own words. To say that because no one has ever seen a black hole, directly & thus they do not exist, is yet again a fallacy. As many observations have pointed out, the acceleration of masses into a black hole will create energy emissions. Acceleration of masses into any intense gravitational field will create energy emissions. Maybe the emissions from the DEATH SCREAM OF MATTER can be distinguished as it falls into a "neutron star" (actually I think matter can be crushed into strange quark matter or something before it's time stops) or a black hole. This emission, to mean anything, would have to come from either just above the event horizon or (If that doesn't exist) the point where time is nearly stopped. The existence of vast thousands of light years long jets of matter This is far from the event horizon, whatever that is. This evidence won't do. Yes these jets exist, I've seen images of them, but it is not diagnostic of the situation at

yevaud · Dec 18, 2005

Maybe the emissions from the DEATH SCREAM OF MATTER can be distinguished as it falls into a "neutron star" Recollect what I said about masses relative to output. Whatever anyone may think, you can't get the kind of output we observe from something that is only a couple of Solar Masses. It's as simple as that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 18, 2005

(Har, har) that's a really funny cartoon! I ran into something outside of this board that the cartoon applies to. A peson I know tried to defend the statement "It is the representation that makes the object possible, rather than the object that makes the representation possible" (Immanuel Kant). I didn't believe that, and when I said so, the guy got really mad. I got into a lot of social trouble because of that. I pinned him down and he finally denied that he meant that your mind creates reality. Then he said that the word, "object" meant something in the mind which was similar to a concept in C++ programming language. But that was a representation, not an object! I found dictionary definitions saying an object was something outside of the mind, which the mind observes. This guy then said _he_ was the authority on definitions, not the dictionary. All our mutual friends did like your cartoon characters. So I got a double laugh. I see this debate similarly. There is indisputably evidence that there are large, dense objects at the centers of galaxies. So some people use this representation to infer a single fundamental particle with an infinitely dense pointlike center surrounded by a barrier that passes light only one way. The only properties we know for sure are the objects' mass, aprox. 100,000,000 solar masses (variable) and electrical charge, 0 (temporarily variable on a small scale). We know nothing of the structure of this particle. The evidence cited by Steve says only, "There is a large, dense object at the centers of galaxies." Would somebody patiently explain to me how matter can break the time barrier as observed by an outside observer and collapse into a singularity as observed by an outside observer? Can somebody patiently explain to me why this thing's mass does not increase without limit?

mikeemmert · Dec 18, 2005

Thank you, Yevaud. Sorry I'll have to go backwards on your post <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. Look at the mass difference between a Neutron Star and a Million-star mass Singularity. Let's see...I heard somewhere that the Chandrasekhar mass (I wish I could pronounce that!) for "cold" neutronium is 1.8 solar masses, and a little more for "hot" neutronium. I'm OK with that. Let's say it _is_ hot and call it 3 Solar masses. The neutrons get crushed and it starts to collapse again. That output I mentioned isn't appearing out of thin... well, vacuum. Something is causing it. And a Neutron Star producing what's been observed is rather like expecting a firecracker to produce a 10-Megaton explosion. Now we're in trouble. The gravitational field of a neutron star is substantial. That represents energy. Since e=mc^2, the gravititational field has a gravitational field, so it's actually heavier. As the neutron star collapses, the gravitational field intensifies, so it gets heavier. That should just keep going up without limit. How does this extra mass/energy appear out of thin...well, thick, neutronium? When you get really close to the "event horizon", whatever that is, it really starts sounding like perpetual motion. Seems to me, no matter how it's worked, a Neutron Star is insufficient. As I said, that's OK by me, I don't know about the other posters. More than three solar masses crushes neutrons, we're on the same wavelength there. But crushes them into what? How do you get around that mass=gravitation=energetic output quandry? How do you get around the observed time dilation and the slowing down of time? I don't know. <</safety_wrapper>

bonzelite · Dec 18, 2005

before arriving at a conclusive statement about the singularity, perhaps consider that if the universe itself is finite, and closed, no such exotic object of infinite dimension can exist here, at any place or time. in other words, if we have billions or trillions of galaxies, and we accept that each one of these structures has a supermassive black hole at it's center, then this would far eclipse the modest and sole singularity from which all of creation was borne. at the first singularity event, then, the big bang, modern cosmology goes on to inflate this event, finitely, closed, ie, limited and time-bound. as there is no infinite universe in this scenario because it is to have had an origin; a beginning in time. this automatically disqualifies an unbound universe. black holes violate this premise entirely and leave huge opportunities for skeptics to tear the whole idea apart, at least in a philosophical sense. you cannot have, then, trillions of galactic singularities borne out of one original big bang event, only then to exist in the finite universe. it simply does not make any sense. a big bang singularity of infinite density would have exploded only to instantly create another infinite state. not a finite and expanding one. it would have exploded infinitely instantly and would have, in essence, not changed it's state whatsoever, really, as it would have been indivisible. and the finite amount of matter plunging --in infinite time-- beyond any event horizon is just what it is: a finite amount of stuff being highly compacted, but not infinitely, as this is not possible in a finite existence. nor could it take infinite coordinate time to compact there, observed or actual. empirical evidence for such objects does not validate them when they can be so easily refuted by complete lay-people. complitcated abstract mathematical systems, e.g., einstein's field equations, as useful as they can be when applied, may

yevaud · Dec 18, 2005

...easily refuted by complete lay-people. I'll let you know when you're talking to one. Glad we agree on this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Dec 18, 2005

hello, Yev, you're up awfully late.

yevaud · Dec 18, 2005

...complitcated abstract mathematical systems, e.g., einstein's field equations, as useful as they can be when applied, may likewise not in any way reflect reality. math is a tool thrown in a box. it is not the box. Now that's a curious statment. Because to support the hypothesis of Neutron Galactic cores as opposed to a Singularity, you have to utilize that self-same math to explain how it is that an object with insufficient mass, hence gravitation, manages to cause effects that cannot be explained by the presence of a Neutron Star. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Dec 18, 2005

but you've got to use the same math, too, to explain somehow we have profuse regions of infinite density in a closed universe.

yevaud · Dec 18, 2005

Other way around. Have to work today, so had to get up very early. I'll have to get back to this tonight. Not much time before I head out. Very interesting topic though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Dec 18, 2005

Who Will Have the Last Laugh? In this debate? I cant wait to see. But too bad, I guess none of us will be around then. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

mikeemmert · Dec 18, 2005

This debate has turned into a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma "The logical fallacy of false dilemma, which is also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered. Examples: "Mark is late for work. Either his car has broken, or he has overslept. If it can be shown that the latter is false, the former must be true." This argument is a false dilemma, because there are many reasons why Mark may have been late for work. If it were somehow proven that there were no other possibilities, then the logic would be sound. But until then, the argument is fallacious." The argument here has turned on only two possiblilities, neutron stars or singularity centered black holes. Both are impossible. The neutrons in neutron stars would be crushed by a mass of three solar masses maximum, even when hot (and they are cooled rapidly by radiating neurtrinos). Black holes are impossible because of time dilation and infinities like infinite mass, which is not observed. The correct answer, "I don't know", is not used because posters believe they must produce some kind of an answer. But this board is supposed to be fun! <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. So how can we discuss this fun subject without ruining our reputations? There is a correct answer to this, of course. It's "I don't know".

bonzelite · Dec 18, 2005

LOL, milkee. good call. i don't know either <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> but it ain't no black hole. as for my reptuation, that is already ruined as i don't buy into the whole gang of experts and their holy shrine of faith-based initiative big bangs. i might as well be burned at the stake for heresy.

yevaud · Dec 19, 2005

Hmm. The odd thing is that we have models you people know as "physics" and "mathematics," that describe the circumstances adequately well. Any rational scientist will tell you that these are works-in-progress. But they do work. Question, as I have not received an answer. How do you explain what we see (which generally meets our predictions via theory) using your hypothesis? No offense, but stating that "Unmoveable Temple of the Dogma of Science" crap is a cop-out. It does not explain your argument one iota ; all it does is attempt to discredit mine. That isn't Science, Sir. That's Politics. It's spin. It's specious rhetoric-chopping. I have Mathematics and Physical Theory behind me. Do you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Dec 19, 2005

oh yes, here we go. the credentials make you correct no matter what. it is evident that models do work within certain contexts. like fish swim in water quite well. but people do not. science is politics. that is mainly what it is. it is a church.

Scientist:neutron stars,not black holes, center of galaxies

nojocujo

Guest

rlb2

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

nexium

Guest

rlb2

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page