Possibility of star formation around black holes

[Walter L. Wagner]

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...r-Form-in-the-Early-Universe-Max-Tegmark-/886

nice video, fairly close to the reality. i have only minor quibbles. yes, he got it right, the early universe was like a dense fog of electrons and protons (after having expanded and cooled to that stage from a stage of interacting quarks), quite hot so that light only traveled a short distance before interacting with another free electron. but over time the electrons became bound in their ground state to protons, and matter became transparent (Hydrogen is a clear gas, relatively transparent to visible light photons). so he showed that when we look outwards, we see a portion of our universe receding from us as that opaque wall, so far away that we 'see' it via super-red-shifted photons in the microwave region, giving a 2,700K blackbody spectrum with a z of about 1071.

after the first stars formed, nuclear fusion could commence in earnest after they went supernova, showering the early galaxies with high-Z elements. astronomers refer to the 'metallicity' of a star to determine if it is 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation due to enrichment with high-Z elements (which are usually Iron/Nickel, or other metals).

 

[Beaconator]

River is getting closer to what I believe to be the answer.

God took a dump and created a warm pile of excrement. Lol

All jokes aside, if we were able to create equal amounts of matter and antimatter from a steaming pile of excrement in our particle collider what would be " the largest source of differential temperatures"?

In other words a group of different elements which would create heat yet dissipate the reaction into cooling without releasing energy.

A sum of elements with high radioactivity yet a large enough resistance to cool into matter instead of exploding and killing all of us in an uncontrollable reaction.

Yes you heard right. Nuclear weapons of a different kind in a particle collider. Risking the lives of every man woman and child on the planet. So I would kinda like to get it right the first try...

Everything previous counts as research. The above is the hypothesis. I will lead those willing and able through the experiment which has sort of combined itself with the hypothesis.

And I could use a little help in organization just to get the ball rolling and make sure those involved and interested are all on a similar page.

 

[paddoboy]

Everything previous counts as research. The above is the hypothesis. I will lead those willing and able through the experiment which has sort of combined itself with the hypothesis.

And I could use a little help in organization just to get the ball rolling and make sure those involved and interested are all on a similar page.

Best of luck..... I was right all along! My very early hypothesis was you were trying to propose another model.
But you do know you are in the wrong forum don't you?
You should be in alternative theories.
Perhaps you could message a moderator and get it shifted?

 

[origin]

Best of luck..... I was right all along! My very early hypothesis was you were trying to propose another model.
But you do know you are in the wrong forum don't you?
You should be in alternative theories.
Perhaps you could message a moderator and get it shifted?

Really? I can't even tell what in the hell he is talking about in his previous post.:shrug:

 

[Beaconator]

Best of luck..... I was right all along! My very early hypothesis was you were trying to propose another model.
But you do know you are in the wrong forum don't you?
You should be in alternative theories.
Perhaps you could message a moderator and get it shifted?

I fail to see how a small dense heat source being experimented upon is either a model or a theory. Once more I fail to see anything except small corrections in terminology not in line with the standard model.

 

[paddoboy]

I fail to see how a small dense heat source being experimented upon is either a model or a theory. Once more I fail to see anything except small corrections in terminology not in line with the standard model.

We have an accepted model on the creation of the elements by stellar fusion and supernova.
Are you proposing something different?
If so, you should be in alternative theories.

 

[Beaconator]

Perhaps I am proposing a controlled scenario of just that. Aided by the transformation of energy into matter.

 

[paddoboy]

Really? I can't even tell what in the hell he is talking about in his previous post.:shrug:

Well, I didn't say I knew what he was completely talking about, just that it smelt from the beginning as an alternative theory.

 

[Beaconator]

Perhaps a question will better enlighten post 122.

how does a resistor work between the input of energy and the output of heat?

 

[paddoboy]

Perhaps a question will better enlighten post 122.

how does a resistor work between the input of energy and the output of heat?

No it wouldn't.
It's irrelevant to whatever unsupported alternative theory of element production you have in mind.
But realizing you are not going to get your "model/theory" peer reviewed, I will ask you for evidence of what you are proposing, or evidence invalidating the stellar fusion process of elements that is generally accepted in mainstream cosmology.

 

[Beaconator]

I am proposing an experiment, backed by our observations to clarify some main problems faced in physics. Such as symmetry vs asymmetry, nuclear observations vs sustainable fusion, and quantum mechanics concerning the big bang to be backed by human experimentation rather than supported yet unproven theory.

Nothing I have said is intended to go against main stream proven experiments and observations. Very little goes against conclusions postulated over theory. All of it is a holistic approach to consideration of truth for truth.

I am not going to sit here and pretend anyone is a moron for not grasping something difficult. I am not going to pretend this is easy for me to explain. (Tho some points are self obvious)

Lets say you had a star in your laboratory. This star contained most known elements in equal masses. (Even the ones created by supernovae) it would take in hydrogen and other gasses continuing to form all elements up to iron. A standard star. If something sounds different than fact please inform.

A huge wave of energy headed directly into it. It allowed for an increase in binding. Yet the energy escaped the star because all the hydrogen surrounding the star and elements in the star could not use the full amount in binding. The energy escapes as photons, electrons, and protons. These particles have just encountered extreme temperatures and are now cooling. Hydrogen forms from this escaped energy.

The further away this energy is from a black hole the cooler it is able to reach after encountering a star, the more hydrogen is produced.

The larger the star the more energy encircles the star. The less the energy cools.

 

[paddoboy]

I am proposing an experiment, backed by our observations to clarify some main problems faced in physics. Such as symmetry vs asymmetry, nuclear observations vs sustainable fusion, and quantum mechanics concerning the big bang to be backed by human experimentation rather than supported yet unproven theory.

Scientific theories are just that...THEORIES. They are never proven. Using this argument is the hallmark of a pseudoscience crank.

Nothing I have said is intended to go against main stream proven experiments and observations. Very little goes against conclusions postulated over theory. All of it is a holistic approach to consideration of truth for truth.

I am not going to sit here and pretend anyone is a moron for not grasping something difficult. I am not going to pretend this is easy for me to explain. (Tho some points are self obvious)

Lets say you had a star in your laboratory. This star contained most known elements in equal masses. (Even the ones created by supernovae) it would take in hydrogen and other gasses continuing to form all elements up to iron. A standard star. If something sounds different than fact please inform.

A huge wave of energy headed directly into it. It allowed for an increase in binding. Yet the energy escaped the star because all the hydrogen surrounding the star and elements in the star could not use the full amount in binding. The energy escapes as photons, electrons, and protons. These particles have just encountered extreme temperatures and are now cooling. Hydrogen forms from this escaped energy.

The further away this energy is from a black hole the cooler it is able to reach after encountering a star, the more hydrogen is produced.

The larger the star the more energy encircles the star. The less the energy cools.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/stellar/stellar_a.html


I just might add that observational evidence re the formation of elements in stars, as per accepted methodology, has plenty of observational evidence, in the spectrum of light we receive from such stars.
I started another thread today, re the discovery of an ancient star said to be 13.6 billion years old and nearly devoid of Iron....not quite, but nearly.
The progenitor of the star was material from a low-energy supernova, from a star whose mass was roughly 60 times that of the Sun.

 

[origin]

Lets say you had a star in your laboratory. This star contained most known elements in equal masses. (Even the ones created by supernovae) it would take in hydrogen and other gasses continuing to form all elements up to iron. A standard star. If something sounds different than fact please inform.

A star cannot exist that 'contains most known elements in equal masses'. So your 'star' is completely different than fact.

 

[paddoboy]

A star cannot exist that 'contains most known elements in equal masses'. So your 'star' is completely different than fact.

Yep, good point.....The elements nucleo synthesised in any star depends on its mass.

 

[Beaconator]

A star cannot exist that 'contains most known elements in equal masses'. So your 'star' is completely different than fact.

What laws attest to this notion. Stars exist which do contain all known elements. In a lab the beginning of a sustained fusion process could transform most elements above iron into the balance we observe.

 

[Beaconator]

Yep, good point.....The elements nucleo synthesised in any star depends on its mass.

Creation rests upon balance not mass.

 

[origin]

What laws attest to this notion. Stars exist which do contain all known elements. In a lab the beginning of a sustained fusion process could transform most elements above iron into the balance we observe.

You need to understand some basic stellar mechanics.

An estimate of the atomic percentages of the sun which is a fairly normal main sequence star is:

91.2% hydrogen
8.7% helium
0.1% other atoms

Stars are made up of the nebula that condensed to form them. If there are some atoms larger than iron then they will be in the star, but in general no atoms above the mass of iron will be produced in a star. The heavier elements will be formed in the collapse of larger stars.

Look at this for some info on stars.

 

[Beaconator]

How many failed experiments have rested upon those numbers to generate fusion?

Gasses in the nebulae you speak of " DO CONTAIN ELEMENTS HEAVIER than IRON". If you had read carefully you would have noticed this was pointed out earlier in this discussion as a "Reformation of stars" not the initial spark of the very first star.

How would you make hydrogen, helium, oxygen (nevermind the heaviest elements) if the materials to manifest the first star were not a precondition to its existence? The star needs gravity to pull materials inward. Iron and heavier elements accomplish this like the bones containing .01% of the total mass of your body in calcium keep the skin on your flesh.

If I am wrong the only adverse outcome from generating a star just like the one described would be a little excess fission before our fusion process really gets going. If I am right, the extraneous elements provide resistance as well as a heat sink to ensure our control over the process.

 

[origin]

How many failed experiments have rested upon those numbers to generate fusion?

Zero.

Gasses in the nebulae you speak of " DO CONTAIN ELEMENTS HEAVIER than IRON". If you had read carefully you would have noticed this was pointed out earlier in this discussion as a "Reformation of stars" not the initial spark of the very first star.

If you had paid attention to what you were writting, you would know that this is what I objected too:

This star contained most known elements in equal masses.

How would you make hydrogen, helium, oxygen (nevermind the heaviest elements) if the materials to manifest the first star were not a precondition to its existence?

Hydrogen, helium and lithium were created with the big bang the heavier elements were created by stellar synthesis.

The star needs gravity to pull materials inward. Iron and heavier elements accomplish this like the bones containing .01% of the total mass of your body in calcium keep the skin on your flesh.

This is a flawed hypothesis. You seem to be saying that there is not enough gravity from hydrogen alone to allow a collapse of the nebula, that is simply wrong.

If I am wrong the only adverse outcome from generating a star just like the one described would be a little excess fission before our fusion process really gets going. If I am right, the extraneous elements provide resistance as well as a heat sink to ensure our control over the process.

Uh, this is just wrong. Did you read the link I provided? If stellar evolution is interesting to you then do a little research on the subject or take a course in astronmy at your local community college. Trying to make a hypothesis about a subject you do not know anything about is never going to be successful!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Scientific theories are just that...THEORIES. They are never proven.

Strange that you would utilize that argument, paddoboy!

Could you possibly clarify the ^^above quoted^^ statements?

Could you possibly cite "reputable" sources to support your ^^above quoted^^ statements?

Using this argument is the hallmark of a pseudoscience crank.

I cannot concur with the ^^immediately above quoted^^ statement.

Choosing to put biased, stereotyped or prejudiced "labels" on yourself, or even other Posters, is not something that I care to condone.