accepted black hole theory voilates accepted physics

12's clock.
Rock.

Lock.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

a thing of quasars?

Luigi Caselli

Silly!
Gone berserk?
Brick by brick,
You say ~
Point x point,
Coordinate
Ordinary day.
Order say,
Her\y!
Earnest One.
N _+
\8
|.....*..........*..............~(@:


_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Luigi Caselli wrote:


Since quasars are very old (high z = high distance) how so many
ultrapowerful black holes could be formed in the early ages of universe?
And why we don't have quasars with low z? Now we have a lot of black holes
formed in the last 13,7 billion years and some of these black holes could be
the power source of new quasars.

Or maybe I don't understand a thing of quasars?

Luigi Caselli

The current model for a quasar is a supermassive black hole at the center of a
galaxy (possibly driven to the levels of energy generation we calculate for it
for the distance they are determined to be by a collision with another galaxy -
based on HST images of distant quasars that show they are at the center of such
galaxy collisions). This black hole is being fed by an accretion disk
surrounding the black hole, possibly formed from gases and disrupted stars in
that region.

Quasars are believed to be more common in the early universe simply because
galaxies were being constructed at that time through the merger of clouds of
newly forming stars and gas (based again on some of the recent images from the
HST ultradeep field), so there would be more raw material to feed them. Given
time, they would sweep up the material near them and have reduced input from
greater distances, reducing the energy output. This takes time, say nearly the
current age of the universe, such that the black holes still reside at the
center of galaxies, but their feeding frenzy has been greatly reduced. But it
also implies the the collision of galaxies which result in material being
brought in close proximity to these black holes might fire them up again as
additional fuel is made available for a renewed feeding frenzy.

As to their existence at this early epoch - likely formed from the merger of
star-produced black holes in the crowded environments of the core of galaxies.
Massive stars, made mostly of hydrogen, could become more massive than those
today polluted with such heavy elements as carbon, iron, silicon, nitrogen (the
stuff we are made of). These higher mass stars would evolve even faster than
the massive stars formed today (as they are more massive than the current round
of stars), allowing them to reach the stage of forming black holes faster and
populating the cores of galaxies at the time those galaxies were forming.

Hope that helps (though it is not a complete scenario by any stretch).

Once a great dreamer I was of the Cosmos but over time I have found less
dream and more reality binding my thoughts.

If I understand correctly, one of the big prize questions in physics,
both quantum and astro, is the relationship between atoms (and other
subatomic particles) and gravity. I understand the conversation in this
thread about how when a black hole forms it doesn't suddenly take on a
new and increased amount of gravitational pull on it's surrounding. I
also understand the BB analogy in that if you take 100 BB's and it's
melted equivalent there is no change in it's mass yet if you take that
mass of 100 BB's and crush it into the size of 1 BB it's gravitational
effect at the surface of the BB will indeed be much stronger than if it
were just 100 BB's in a jar. Radius, mass, and gravity work together
but it's important to visualize the relationship as dependent upon where
your measurements are being taken.

Something I've pondered about concerning black holes in particular, is
the organization of the atoms inside. I flounder to produce the name of
the researcher who studied the shapes of solids 100's of years ago;
the one that concluded that some shapes are inherently natural. I
visualize atoms as BB's that are squashable. If you put BB's in a jar
you can see that they rest in a certain way naturally. In a black hole,
or even all black holes, are the atoms that exist inside organized in
such a way? Do atoms even exist inside as we know them or are they
completely unbound and crushed further into the various quarks that make
up protons and neutrons? Do electrons survive the transformation or are
they completely removed from the mass? Is a black hole susceptable to
ground -state fluctuations?

I ask the questions but expect no answer as they very well might not be
valid questions at all and just the musings of an idiot or just more dreams.

Once a great dreamer I was

Dear Ms. Shirley,
I'll get back to you.
I knew you'd write,
An abbot's cabinent.
Gotta go
Shower my soul,
Stand under the rain.
Back in half,
Before you No.

I understand the conversation in this
thread

Yes, but do you know
Ms. B? Fancy dancer
Without her habit's
Madder? Goose down
Pillow, she's made
For me. Quack,
Quack!

important to visualize the relationship as dependent upon where
your measurements are being taken.

O, yes, I do know.
Matter's value
For me.

Long-delayed date,
Our destiny of choice
Voice.

just the musings of an idiot or just more dreams.

[Just]in! True,
Wizzard blew
In. Answer, who?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Southern Hospitality wrote:

[snip]

Something I've pondered about concerning black holes in particular, is
the organization of the atoms inside. I flounder to produce the name of
the researcher who studied the shapes of solids 100's of years ago;
the one that concluded that some shapes are inherently natural. I
visualize atoms as BB's that are squashable. If you put BB's in a jar
you can see that they rest in a certain way naturally. In a black hole,
or even all black holes, are the atoms that exist inside organized in
such a way? Do atoms even exist inside as we know them or are they
completely unbound and crushed further into the various quarks that make
up protons and neutrons? Do electrons survive the transformation or are
they completely removed from the mass? Is a black hole susceptable to
ground -state fluctuations?


Consider neutron stars, which are much less dense than black holes,
but even they no longer have any atomic structure. They're thought to
be made of 'degenerate' matter, sometimes called "neutronium", in
which all the empty space has been squeezed out of the atoms, fusing
the protons and electrons into what's in effect a gigantic nucleus. I
don't know much about what the substance of a black hole is supposed
to be like on a microscopic scale, but whatever it is I'm pretty sure
it's nothing at all like 'ordinary' atomic matter.

Were you perhaps thinking of Kepler, who (beside his more famous
astronomical work) did some research into polyhedra, IIANM
discovering a number of stellated forms?

--
Odysseus

S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert

S.H.
There can be no atoms inside
a BH.

Got milk?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert


No argument there. Is there any possibility that the particles that
make up a black hole are the same ones that made up the universe before
the big-bang?

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
S.H. There can be no atoms inside a BH. Bert


There has to be atoms inside a BH. How else do they evaporate over time?
Where do the atoms go? Or are you suggesting everything that enters a BH is
converted to energy? If so, doesn't that break law of conservation of
information.

BV.

P.S. I am not argueing, I am actually curious about those answers.