Google "theory VS proof" and every science site will confirm what paddoboy stated
Possibility of star formation around black holes
- Thread starter Beaconator
- Start date
Google "theory VS proof" and every science site will confirm what paddoboy stated
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Sustainable? So alls we gotta do is sit there add nothing except energy (like a black hole) and it continues to grow and produce elements of a higher order. (Like a galaxy extenuating from a black hole)
If its going to be a chicken/debate why not make both.
Confusing a hypothetical does not explain the hypothetical. Like Hawking saying firewalls don't exist. I haven't read anything about it really, but I suspect he explained a case with a firewall that did not agree with some law or theory.
Convenient.
Nope. I'm saying if it is all being forced away from a source why not either continue or return to the source? It is right there with the matter/antimatter symmetry debate. collapse of a nebula would not explain the forces causing the mass to gather in the first place.
Oh wait hold on just a minute I got something in my front pocket for you.
"If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Albert Einstein
So your argument here has been shown to be previously incorrect, by the person who helped create many of your misconstrued contentions.
No idea what you are trying to say.
What are you talking about.
Confusing what hypothetical? Hawking says firewalls don't exist? Really, what in the hell are you talking about?
Convenient? Uh, I guess....
What do you mean it is being forced away from the source? Why would you think that?
That has nothing to do with the formation of a star.
The force that causes mass to gather together is called gravity.
I have some advice I would like to impart to you.
1. Get a better translator
2. Get at least the barest understanding of stars and astronomy
3. Drop the arrogance, it is only going to get in the way of your education
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Which came first? Black holes or stars suggested to eventually make black holes?
the laboratory hypothetical you contend is not viable for the process of fusion or fission.
The first three elements you say are made in the bb. They are in motion yes?
Matter has nothing to do with the formation of a star? That explains it.
Thanks. What causes these first three elements to gravitate circularly instead of linearly in open space.
You are right. You are terrible at it.
I have seven pages of it here. Not one theory or law in the history of physics prevents.
Perhaps you should read more literature on subjects other than astronomy. Take Mark Twain for instance.
"Ive never let my schooling interfere with my education"- Mark Twain
Don't insult me with false accusations of narcissistic confabulation.
Your attitude and approach are well calibrated for turning out nonsense. If that's what you want, so be it, but if you want to actually learn, you'll need to change it.
I would say matter came first.
Still not sure what you are talking about. We have infact shown fission and fusion actually occur (bombs and reactors).
Well everything is in motion. But to say that these 3 elements are moving away from the 'source' of the big bang is obviously wrong.
I will just assume you misunderstood. You said "It is right there with the matter/antimatter symmetry debate" which again, has nothig to do with star formation.
The chances of a nebula having no net rotational movement at all is slim. As the nebula contracts to a star the tiny net rotational movement of the nebula becomes greater due to the conservation of angular momentum.
So you beleive that you are being clear? Really?
You have 7 pages that prove you do not know the current state of astronomy.
Do you still say you are being clear???
I do astronomy is just a hobby.
Mark Twain was very witty.
I made no false accusations that I am aware of.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Then study matter holistically.
Previously you stated.
Could this object of which I speak form matter from energy passing through it?
It is unknown I don't pretend to know. I don't pretend you know, but I suspect radiation emanating from black holes (radiation which contains a nearly full spectrum from gamma to black body) would form elements after passing through this object and cooling in open space.
Again, scientific theories are just that....THEORIES.
They are never proven....that is the beauty of the scientific system and the scientific methodology....It is always open to modification, tinkering, or changing, based on new and further observational data.
As others have noted, I'll let you do the googling to show why your questioning of the statement is vastly astray.
And yes, certainly, the "It's only a theory" type of ignorant statement, is often used by pseudoscience cranks, anti mainstream nutters, and conspiracy theorists in their forlorn attempts to deride science and the scientific method.
Just do some reasearch at sciforums.com to verify that.
OK.
Hmmmm. I do not know if this is a lie or and error - let's give you the benefit of the doubt.
I objected to this statement:
This star contained most known elements in equal masses.
Notice the bolded section you left out?
No
None of that (after the first sentence) makes any sense.
It has been suggested that micro BH's may have been created at the BB, but ind any event, even if true, such BH's would probably evaporate via Hawking radiation before they could grow any larger.
Other then that, stars obviously were formed before BH's.
The first Generation of stars were certainly Pop 3 as inferred logically by the standard cosmological picture.
These were huge in comparison to what we see today and almost metal free.
They lived short lives [in the region of 10's of millions of years] and then went supernova spewing heavier elements into the Universe.
Some left behind Neutron stars/Pulsars, others left behind BH's.
These BH's logically then would have formed the nucleus of our first galaxies, drawing in debris from the first supernovas from the Universe around them and growing to become our first SMBH's.
PS: NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has confirmed the presence of BH's accumulating mass, at the center of many distant galaxies, and supporting the current accepted theory of galactic formation and SMBH's.
You seem to be having great difficulty in accepting this standard cosmological picture, and yet offer no evidence to support your own hypothesis.
It is not unknown!
We have practical illustrations that nucleosynthesis of elements does take place.
You suspect????
How?, why?
What you are suggesting sounds crazy.
Yet it offers no evidence in support, nothing falsifying present theory of element creation, and really does not seem plausible.
But perhaps you know something that I don't?
Huh? The part where a magic star turns electromagnetic radiation into elements?
I'm imagining free hydrogen fuel condensing out of thin air around those big megawatt AM radio towers.
Now if we can just figure out a way to contain it . . . .
Folks, sell all your energy shares. The bubble is about to bust.
I was trying to point out to the Poster that "theories" and "facts" are two completely different things.
Since "theories" are not "facts", they should not be used as a "fact" when arguing against another "theory".
In true science a "theory" must be falsifiable. I.E., capable of being proven wrong.
- from (Bold by dmoe) : http://www.decodedscience.com/what-is-science/2833
- The ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://www.decodedscience.com/what-is-science/2833
The word "fact" does not appear in the post you were quoting. You should not put in quotes things that are not quotes. That's putting words in peoples mouths they didn't say.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Ha ha ha. Finally someone with a bit of sense and wit!
Yet I am still a step ahead. Now I get to have my fun!
Its time to start a round of Jeopardy!
Alright and the category is containment for the sum of infinite knowledge and bragging rights!
I am the only element incapable of fusion still involved with the process of fusion.
________________________________________________________________________
A supernova is a massive explosion of a star that occurs under two principal scenarios. The first is that a white dwarf star undergoes a nuclear based explosion after it reaches its Chandrasekhar limit after absorbing mass from a neighboring star (usually a red giant). The second, and more common, cause is when a massive star, usually a red giant, reaches nickel-56 in its nuclear fusion (or burning) processes. This isotope undergoes radioactive decay into iron-56, which has one of the highest binding energies of all of the isotopes, and is the last element that produces a net release of energy by nuclear fusion, exothermically. All nuclear fusion reactions that produce heavier elements cause the star to lose energy or are said to be endothermic reactions. The pressure that supports the star's outer layers drops sharply. As the outer envelope is no longer sufficiently supported by the radiation pressure, the star's gravity pulls its outer layers rapidly inward. The star collapses very quickly, and strikes the incompressible core causing a shockwave that progresses outward through the unfused material of the outer shell. The pressures and densities in the shockwave are sufficient to induce fusion in that material and the star explodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
in supernovae the pressures and temperatures obtained are high enough that Fe undergos fusion reactions, producing all the known heavier nuclei.
Since you're limiting yourself to stellar fusion, we'd probably have to guess that you're identifying with Iron Man.