Is black hole just massive particle ?

[april]

april.
One thing (of many, many things) that I am utterly unclear on is how the Big Bang (BB), , as it is conceived, figures into (or with, along side, beside, in spite of...) its place in time, specifically, infinity ( ∞ ).
In other words/symbols:
This?... ∞BB ...or this BB∞ ...or, perhaps, this ∞BB∞ ...or even this BB[SUP]∞[/SUP] ..........
CBB

I dont follow what you are asking .
The theory is all matter started from one place in an almighty explosion which created all the material in the universe.
That theory seems absurd to me but they get dollars to seek remnants of that explosion so lucky them
I would not give them a cent.
Its an unanswerable question as to what might be outside the universe but I am fairly sure time is an unchangeable constant and there will be no time travel or slowing of time in any form - I don't agree with Einstein's theories on time

 

[april]

Its very much alive and being pushed to the hilt
Aint funding marvellous !

https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/when-the-first-stars-blinked-on-1205.html

When the first stars blinked on

 

[cowboybob]

I dont follow what you are asking .
The theory is all matter started from one place in an almighty explosion which created all the material in the universe.
That theory seems absurd to me but they get dollars to seek remnants of that explosion so lucky them
I would not give them a cent.
Its an unanswerable question as to what might be outside the universe but I am fairly sure time is an unchangeable constant and there will be no time travel or slowing of time in any form - I don't agree with Einstein's theories on time

Just musing.

Mixing time (eternity) with the Big Bang:

∞BB - Eternity times the Big Bang

BB∞ - Big Bang times Eternity (only different from above by what comes first)

∞BB∞ - Eternity times the Big Bang multiplied by Eternity

BB[SUP]∞[/SUP] Big Bang raised to Eternity - Infinite number of Big Bangs? Or Big Bang
for Eternity? And if we take the derivative, we have an example of one above. That being the case, what is X with:

X=∫[SUB]0[/SUB][SUP]∞[/SUP] Big Bang?

If the physicists can make stuff up (which they have to do to make a LOT of their math work), why can't I ??

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure for X=∫[SUB]0[/SUB][SUP]∞[/SUP] Big Bang, X = "Whoa...".

 

[april]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20695327

Hubble astronomers have observed deeper into space than ever before.
In doing so, they have identified six new galaxies of stars that formed just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang itself.
The study also updates a distance estimate for a seventh galaxy, placing it further back in time than any object previously identified.
Called UDFj-39546284, this is seen when the cosmos was less than 3% of its current age.
The new Hubble telescope investigation was led by Richard Ellis from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and colleagues at Edinburgh University, Jim Dunlop and Ross McLure.

The spending goes on and on

 

[lynx]

The spending goes on and on

what do you mean by that?

 

[april]

Science "Professionals " looking for any funding they can drum up regardless of the absurdity of the subject matter.
And the incompetents that give it to them

 

[april]

Here's a bit I saw recently . There is more and more of this stuff the further we are able to look out . Next as they discover objects further out they will be putting the date of the big bang theory further back too

(Reuters) - Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe - a group of quasars so large it would take 4 billion years to cross it while traveling at speed of light.

The immense scale also challenges Albert Einstein's Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe looks the same from every point of view, researchers said.

The findings by academics from Britain's University of Central Lancashire were published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and reported on the society's website on Friday.

Quasars are believed to be the brightest objects in the universe, with light emanating from the nuclei of galaxies from the early days of the universe and visible billions of light-years away.

"Since 1982 it has been known that quasars tend to group together in clumps or 'structures' of surprisingly large sizes, forming large quasar groups or LQGs," the society said.

This newly discovered large quasar group has a dimension of 500 megaparsecs, each megaparsec measuring 3.3 million light-years.

Because the LQG is elongated, its longest dimension is 1,200 megaparsecs, or 4 billion light-years, the society said.

That size is 1,600 times larger than the distance from Earth's Milky Way to the nearest galaxy, the Andromeda.

"While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe," Roger Clowes, leader of the research team, said in a statement. "This is hugely exciting - not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe."

Clowes said the team would continue to investigate the phenomenon with particular interest in the challenge to the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein, whose work still forms the basis for much of modern cosmology.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Gary Hill)

 

[cowboybob]

Not suprisingly, I don't quite understand why the sighting of this LQG challenges the Cosmological Principle.

If, somehow, we were to look at it from a position on the other side of it (assuming there is another side), sort of looking back through the LQG to our current position would it not look similar?

 

[april]

Can't say I know it either but according to the big bang theorists if you look out from our position toward it the time it takes for the light emminating from it is close to the time ago the big bang happened so there should not be an "other " side of it I think.

I would have to study up on Cosmological principle and I have other things to do better than proving Einstein wrong . I already think he was way out anyway.

 

[april]

Foor a litlle bit of insight into what could be going on in a black mass and why jets of material are probably being ejected from the poles creating new stars see this video -stunning

Each second in the above time lapse video takes about 6 minutes in real time, so that the entire coronal rain sequence lasted about 10 hours.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130226.html

Imagine what interaction between two black masses would produce in the way of new stars

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2457.html

Astronomers speculate that M51's spiral structure is primarily due to its gravitational interaction with a smaller galaxy just off the top of the image.

 

[april]

A recent artists impression of a black mass.
I think material is likely ejected from the weakest part of the magnetic fields , the poles. I think that likely is the source of all new stars and there is a cycle of birth, life, death, of all stars. Not this silly creationists view of instant matter from nothing.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130312.html

 

[april]

The BS just keeps comming like religion
Look at this quote -you believe it right?

"The variations from place to place in the map that Planck has made tell us new things about what happened just 10 nano-nano-nano-nano seconds after the Big Bang when the universe expanded by 100 trillion, trillion times,"

They needed a gap between nano-nano-nano seconds so they provides a one thousanth of it to get stuff in. Their degree of accuracy is good enough to within 100 million years in 13,800,000,000,000 years

This is extracted from this page

**broken link removed**

God protect us from research scientists

 

[april]

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/multimedia/potw/potw-137.html

Deliberating on the fantastic events that take place on our own Sun I reasoned that as Suns accumulate more and more mass , eventually the gravity stops all light leaving . When that happens if nothing escapes then it could remain in that state for ever? I'm just wondering if heat could still escape or would gravity hold back heat at some point.? I guess that as we can photograph them in infrared something gets out but then maybe that is just reflections from starlight we catch.

More and more matter would keep coming in. Would that result in a massive explosion like those we see as super novas?. Indeed does it have no choice. If matter is ejected from the poles that would relieve any tension . If it does not get out then an explosion may be the only option.

The photographed gas shells are explained as such by the scientists analysing the Hubble's resultant photos.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130317.html
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130313.html

 

[april]

I have decided that the name "Black Hole" is totally and unnecessarily misleading. It has lead writers and thinkers to totally incorrect and ficticious dreams of what it might look like and what it might be able to do.

I suggest rather "Supermassive Black Sun" as more appropriate.

 

[steveB]

Real "thinkers" will recall something said by one of the great "writers", just a short time before Galileo directed a telescope toward the night sky.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

 

[april]

Yes quite so. A quote from shakespear's Romeo and Juliet . Me thinks Let me find it

https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/what-s-name-that-which-we-call-rose

However whats important here is that scientific names can be misleading at times and this one is.

 

[april]

Wow
2Billion dollars and 18 months plus and they want to take it nice and steady now ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22016504

Research dollars . What a sham

 

[steveB]

However whats important here is that scientific names can be misleading at times and this one is.

No, what is important here is that you have perpetrated a misleading non-sequitur.

You started with the premise that the "name is misleading", which seems like a reasonable opinion, and then jumped to the conclusion that

"It has lead writers and thinkers to totally incorrect and ficticious dreams of what it might look like and what it might be able to do."

This is not a logical consequence, particularly when you say "quite so" to my reminder that real thinkers know that a name is just a label and to truly understand the nature of an object, one must look at it's properties and behavior, and not a catchy name someone chose in the distant past.

I have no doubt that some people have allowed themselves to be misled by all kinds of things, including names, but in those cases I blame those persons and their weak thinking ability and not the person who chose the name with all good intentions.

 

[april]

Only artists impressions of a "Supermassive Black Sun " but interesting non the less
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA16697
I notice when you mouse over the images they use the name "Supermassive Black Holes"
Well thats some improvement anyway

 

[steveB]

I notice when you mouse over the images they use the name "Supermassive Black Holes"
Well thats some improvement anyway

Again, you are being misleading. The adjective "supermassive" is not meant to be an improvement to the term "black hole', but is used for black holes with the mass equivalent of millions of stars or more. This distinguishes it from those with only stellar mass, or those with mass in between these objects.

Also, there is nothing in theory that says black holes must be massive. Any object with mass greater than the Planck mass can (in theory) be formed into a black hole, and theory predicts the possibility of very tiny black holes, sometimes referred to a mini- micro- or quantum black holes.

You shouldn't get too hung up on names. Even these adjectives are not going to help anyone who does not study the details of the latest science on black holes. Terms like "micro", "mini", "massive" or "supermassive" mean nothing unless placed in context with real measurement data and supporting theory.