White holes?

[jatslo]

That's not my plan; my prototype generates artificial gravity is all.

 

[scull]

Ahhh...<br /><br />vacuum-fluctuation battery???<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - Where to start?<br /><br />I agree white holes would be empty, in that it is by definition if they exist somewhere (perhaps beyond our universe, for example).<br /><br />Why do you feel hydrogen would turn opaque because of heat? That is simply not in harmony with observation.<br /><br />The IGM, or intergalactic medium, is extremely hot and is mostly hydrogen - it is clearly transparent, thought it does have effects of course.<br /><br />Of course, black holes are far more dense than the near vacuum IGM. <br /><br />The evidence for a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy and many other galaxies would not indicate they are powering our galaxy - but effects are observed, notably rotational effects and also jets.<br /><br />There was even evidence of an antimatter jet some years ago that has, for some reason, been ignored of late:<br /><br /><br />"Plume of Antimatter Discovered<br /><br />Astrophysicists recently discovered what appears to be a 3,500-light-year-long plume of antimatter streaming out of the core of our galaxy, the Milky Way, reports The New York Times. Antimatter consists of atomic particles that are exactly like normal matter except that they have opposite electrical charges. Contact with particles of ordinary matter results in mutual annihilation and releases powerful gamma rays having a specific energy. Scientists identified the plume as antimatter by tuning the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory satellite to that energy level. As for the effect of the plume, “the astrophysicists said it did not threaten Earth, just their image of the galaxy.” - "Awake!," 10/22/97, p. 29

 

[newtonian]

scull - Interesting. You mean the critical radius for a black hole?<br /><br />I would imagine interesting things could happen for a while if the mass was almost exactly, or ever so slightly greater than this critical radius per mass, or density.<br /><br />LIke rapid rotation within said radius causing temporary or even permanent escape velocity.<br /><br />A contracting mass will, of course, increase its rotation. <br /><br />One of my questions is how a black hole central mass avoids increasing rotation rate to faster than light if the collapsing star is already rotating fairly rapidly before collapse??????????????

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Hydrogen sample turned white, then yellow, orange and red, before becoming <b><font color="white"><i>opaque</i></font></b></font>/i> at 320 GPahttp://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/4/6/1 What is the significance of this experiment to black stars?

 

[jatslo]

Something like that, but you are missing a componet.

 

[scull]

Newtonian -- stable black hole, rotating black hole, charged black hole -- I have no idea....<br /><br />My train of thought was actually along the lines of the phenomenon of negative pressure....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[scull]

What?

 

[astrophoto]

Newtonian,<br /><br />GRB can be explained many different ways other than black holes. It could be a collision of two ultra dense bodies. It could be a normal reactive during a certain type of supernova event apart from the formation of any 'black hole'. They've recently detected two possibly different types of GRB's -- short and long -- it is thought they could be formed by completely different scenarios, neither of which necessitate the existance of a black hole.<br /><br />I believe black holes, dark energy and dark matter are convenient ways to explain phenomenae we do not yet understand or do not have enough empirical evidence to support. Mathematics and the reality of the universe are two seperate things and it's always mathematics that loses the argument when things don't jive.<br /><br />How would you explain the recent detection of young star systems very close to the supposed center of Galaxies and their supermassive black holes?<br />

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I believe black holes, dark energy and dark matter are convenient ways to explain phenomenae we do not yet understand or do not have enough empirical evidence to support. Mathematics and the reality of the universe are two seperate things and it's always mathematics that loses the argument when things don't jive."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Indeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

astrophoto - First, I am not generally inside the box - I am simply posting an alternate view, the popular one in this case, to analyze the validity of differing views.<br /><br />I will research and get back to you on your question.<br /><br />The simplest explanation is that gravity from the center of our galaxy and others is causing gas and dust to coalesce into young stars.<br /><br />Star collisions are also more common in the denser portions of galactic cores.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - Wow! I had no idea!<br /><br />OK, I stand, or - er - sit, corrrected.<br /><br />Hydrogen becomes like a metal and becomes black at great pressures such as what hydrogen would encounter in a black hole!<br /><br />I wonder if those pressures are reached in a massive star at its core????<br /><br />What is the atmospheric pressure in the core of massive stars???<br /><br />Thank you for the link, jatslo.

 

[siriusmre]

Is gravity really the "simplest explanation?" How does gravity from the center of a galaxy cause material to coalesce into widely distributed glowing spheroid objects? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - Note the temperature of the experiment: 100 K - that is very cold!<br /><br />I would expect the temperature at the core of stars and black holes to be very hot, as was the origin of our universe.<br /><br />It was a good idea though!<br />

 

[newtonian]

SirusMrE - Need time to research - that was off the top of my head. <br /><br />There would be magnetic forces, and shock waves also.<br /><br />How do stars and planets coalesce in the first place?<br /><br />What prompts structure in our universe?<br /><br />Gravity, of course, produces spherical masses, depending, of course, on rotation and modification by other forces.

 

[siriusmre]

Do you "expect the temperature at the core of stars...to be very hot" because of the "nuclear furnaces" theorized to be at the heart of stars? If that is the case then why are sunspot umbrae COOLER (by almost 2000 K!) than the photosphere on our sun? This would suggest that the temperature gradient is not quite as simple as some would have us think. So, if the temperature is not radiating from the core, then whence does it radiate? I know, this observation is explained away as an effect of magnetism not allowing heat to rise to the surface, right? Yet another <i>ad hoc</i> explanation. What if the cores of stars are NOT 6 million K?<br /><br />Also, how do we know that "black holes," including the one that "was the origin of our universe," was hot? How can we be sure? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

The star is opaque, or black. X-rays from the poles is evidence of their existence, and not evidence of black holes. Did you know that regular stars have jets of X-Rays too?

 

[siriusmre]

Good point, jatslo! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I expect that the core would be colder because of heat sink like conductivity properties of metallic hydrogen and Helium, (Helium II), because I do not see any reason why metallic hydrogen wouldn't shield something cold. I would be curious to know what would happen to metallic hydrogen with a helium II core under the anvil. I told Saiph many months ago that I thought the core were cold, and he flipped.

 

[neutron_star69]

i dont think that it would get cold.

 

[jatslo]

Colder, as in not as hot

 

[siriusmre]

I would also expect the core to be cooler...but for completely different reasons:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly."</font><br /><br />More: The Electric Sun<br /><br />All the action happens on the surface of the sun and beyond, not in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[neutron_star69]

sure it would get colder but not by much, cores are extremely hott.

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">More: The Electric Sun</font><br /><br />An analysis of the claims made on that site can be found here: http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[neutron_star69]

good site