THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Ony an idiot would think that the Andromeda galaxy is a black hole.

I always thought only an idiot (and people that haven't understood the cause of black holes) would believe that Andromeda or any other galaxies doesn’t have black holes.
That the holes not are very active doesn’t mean they are not their.

A black hole can suddenly be active. It would have no effect on the Solar System.

It would depend on how strong the Suns and Earth magnetic field was at that time.. But a direct jet hit would not be my preferable cup of coffee. Some scientist thinks it could be deadly.

We know because we look at black holes and only see radiation from their accrual disks.

And what does that prove? – Except that radiation escapes.

 

[Bjarne]

Possibly, but we and the Earth will be long gone before that happens, and the problem for us will not be the black hole in M31 but the increased formation of new massive stars that will result.

2 – 3 billion years > collision.
Depend of what you mean by “us”

We know because black holes conform to the laws of nature. We have not yet observed anything that says otherwise.

Let’s say that out on Jensen plough field there was a black hole. You could not see what was inside, but you knew light and all kind of EMV exist outside. What would that prove, according to what happens inside the hole. ?

I can also reach through space, and yet I do not assume that space itself is involved in the process.

Come on man…

 

[steenkh]

2 – 3 billion years > collision.
Depend of what you mean by “us”

The Earth and human civilization.

Let’s say that out on Jensen plough field there was a black hole. You could not see what was inside, but you knew light and all kind of EMV exist outside. What would that prove, according to what happens inside the hole. ?

There is a lot to be learned from the interaction of black holes with their surroundings. That is also why it is hoped that the LHC at CERN will be able to produce black holes.

Come on man…

Exactly: your reasoning is seriously flawed.

 

[Reality Check]

And what does that prove? – Except that radiation escapes.

It proves that you cannot read (and I cannot spell!) - Accretion discs are not black holes.

 

[Reality Check]

Let’s say that out on Jensen plough field there was a black hole. You could not see what was inside, but you knew light and all kind of EMV exist outside. What would that prove, according to what happens inside the hole. ?

What it proves is that there is light and all kind of matter existing outside the black hole.

Come on man… That is so simple that even you can understand it.

The mass of black holes proves that there is matter inside their event horizon. The fact that there is light hitting black holes proves that there is light inside the event horizons.
The fact that nothing has ever been detected being emitted from black holes is strong evidence that nothing can cross an event horizon from inside it.
The fact that general relativity predicts thta black holes are black is an added bonus.


It is really simple physics (but well out of the understannding of Bjarne):

1. Gravitational fields bend light, e.g.
   • The measured bending of light by the Sun.
   • Gravitation lensing.
2. Light bends more as the strength of the gravitational field increases.
3. Increase the strength of the gravitational field enough and light goes in a circle.
4. Light that is travelling in a circle orbits the body producing the gravitational field and cannot escape.
5. That is a black hole.

Black holes also have another property - matter vanishes into the event horizon. This means that astronomers can compare observations of black hole candidates to objects that definitely have surfaces, i.e. neutron stars. Type I X-ray bursts are a characteristic of matter hitting a surface. They are seen when matter falls onto the surface of a neutron star, is compressed and heated as it accumulates which leads to thermonuclear reactions (and X-rays). For some reason any in-falling matter from the accrual disk of Sagittarius A* and the observed black hole candidates are not accumulating on a surface. So either there is no in-falling matter (unlikely) or we have an event horizon. Here is some of the science:

• Advection-dominated Accretion and Black Hole Event Horizons; Narayan, Garcia & McClintock, Astrophysical Journal Letters 478(2): L79-L82, April 1997.
• Quasi-regular X-Ray Bursts from GRS 1915+105 Observed with the IXAE: Possible Evidence for Matter Disappearing into the Event Horizon of the Black Hole; Paul, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 492(1): L63-L66, January 1998.
• New Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons from Chandra; Garcia, et al., Astrophysical Journal 553(1): L47-L50, May 2001.
• On the Lack of Type I X-Ray Bursts in Black Hole X-Ray Binaries: Evidence for the Event Horizon?; Narayan & Heyl, Astrophysical Journal 574(2): L139-L142, August 2002.
• Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes; Done & Gierlinski, Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society 342(4): 1041-1055, July 2003.
• The Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons; Remillard, et al., Astrophysical Journal 646(1): 407-419, July 2006.

 

[Bjarne]

The mass of black holes proves that there is matter inside their event horizon.

• First at all you don’t know how black holes are created.
• You also don’t know how the jets are created.
• You don’t know the nature of gravity,
• You don’t know the nature of central gravity (dark matter we have discussed earlier.)
• You even don’t know if there is matter inside the black hole or how much.

What you do know is that if matter reaches the black hole it will continue to orbit faster and faster into the black hole.
You also know that when at least electrons orbits you’ll have a electromagnetic field.
Don’t underestimate the force of that field and how much that contributes to pull matter into a black hole.
Huge amount of space spins into the black hole, so you do not need so much matter as you believe.

Much of the force of a black hole could be a very turbulent magnetic field, caused by fast orbiting matter / particles, very likewise electromagnetism.
This is what must happen in a black hole, at least the day you understand that matter and space is connected, and especially if you one day should understand how space and matter is connected.

The fact that nothing has ever been detected being emitted from black holes is strong evidence that nothing can cross an event horizon from inside it.

• All kind of EM valves have been detected right outside the event horizon.
• You can see the jet coming from the centre of a galaxy.
• You also know this is the exact place where you typical expect to find black hole to be.
• And you can see a lot of strange EM and stuff coming out of these jets.

But you can off course close your eyes, and believe that the jet has nothing to do with the black hole. What you (and/or the majority) believe is not certain knowledge, but believes.

• It is really simple physics (but well out of the understanding of Bjarne):
• Gravitational fields bend light, e.g.
• The measured bending of light by the Sun.
• Gravitation lensing.
• Light bends more as the strength of the gravitational field increases.
• Increase the strength of the gravitational field enough and light goes in a circle.
• Light that is travelling in a circle orbits the body producing the gravitational field and cannot escape.
• That is a black hole.

Right, but what about light with direction towards to the bottom of the funnel?
It seems to me there is a possible escape both for matter as well for EM valves.

Matter can probaly escape because of resistance against motion will force matter deeper into the black hole, this as well as the magnetic jet will accellerate matter. - EMV can maybe circle for ever. But EMV can also escape if moving more or less straight into the funnel.

Don’t underestimate the force of the jets.
I honestly can’t imaging anything in a galaxy that is so powerful to created such force, except a magnetic field that is caused and a integrated parts of the black hole.

 

[steenkh]

First at all you don’t know how black holes are created.

Yes, we do.

You also don’t know how the jets are created.

True. But we know they are not coming from the black hole.

You don’t know the nature of gravity,

Yes, we do.

You don’t know the nature of central gravity (dark matter we have discussed earlier.)

There is no such thing "central" gravity. There is only gravity.

You even don’t know if there is matter inside the black hole or how much.

Utter crap. We know there is matter inside the black, and we even know how much, because it can be measured.

Don’t underestimate the force of that field and how much that contributes to pull matter into a black hole.

You are not in a position to know if physicists are underestimating or overestimating the force of such a field: you do not even know what a field is!

Huge amount of space spins into the black hole, so you do not need so much matter as you believe.

Utter crap. Black holes can be dormant if there is no matter around to absorb, but there will always be plenty of space, so in that case they would continue to grow, but that does not happen. You do not have the faintest idea what space is, and you do not know what it means if space is stretched or deformed. You have several times been asked to explain yourself, but the best you have been able to produce is a circular argument.

Much of the force of a black hole could be a very turbulent magnetic field, caused by fast orbiting matter / particles, very likewise electromagnetism.

Yes, but if anything, the magnetic field is redirecting matter, not pulling more matter in. The powerful jets away from the black hole are probably the result of the magnetic fields.

It seems to me there is a possible escape both for matter as well for EM valves.

Why does it seem to you that gravity does not work at certain angles? You are ridiculous. Nobody, not Stephen Hawking, or anybody else who knows something about black holes are suggesting that matter can escape from a black hole.

Don’t underestimate the force of the jets.

Nobody are underestimating the forces of the jets, but you are clueless about physics in general and black holes in particular!

I honestly can’t imaging anything in a galaxy that is so powerful to created such force, except a magnetic field that is caused and a integrated parts of the black hole.

Obviously, the jets are created by a black hole. Nobody are suggesting anything else. But you seem to be unable to understand that the jets are not material escaping from inside the black hole, but are material escaping from the accretion disk around the black hole.

 

[ArcturusA]

• First at all you don’t know how black holes are created.

• 
  Yes we do. Giant stars collapse under their own gravity. Research stellar evolution, it's a well understood field.
  
  

  [*]You also don’t know how the jets are created.

  Yes, this is an ongoing area of research, as far as I know.
  

  [*]You don’t know the nature of gravity,
  [*]You don’t know the nature of central gravity (dark matter we have discussed earlier.)

  
  Gravity is caused by deformation of space-time by massive objects. That is well supported by the overwhelming experimental evidence for general relativity.
  
  

  [*]You even don’t know if there is matter inside the black hole or how much.

You can measure a black hole's mass, charge and angular momentum, which change as the black hole accretes material.

What you do know is that if matter reaches the black hole it will continue to orbit faster and faster into the black hole.

No.
Objects orbit black holes exactly like any other object of the same mass until you reach a certain radius where no orbits are possible. You cannot orbit the singularity inside a black hole's event horizon.

Don’t underestimate the force of that field and how much that contributes to pull matter into a black hole.

These forces originate in the accretion disc, not the black hole. You have exactly the same forces in an accretion disc around a star of the same mass.

• All kind of EM valves have been detected right outside the event horizon.
• You can see the jet coming from the centre of a galaxy.
• You also know this is the exact place where you typical expect to find black hole to be.
• And you can see a lot of strange EM and stuff coming out of these jets.

But you can off course close you eyes, and believe this has nothing to do with the black hole. What you (and/or the majority) believe is not certain knowledge, but believes.

Right, but what about light with direction towards to the bottom of the funnel?

There is no funnel.

 

[Bjarne]

Obviously, the jets are created by a black hole. Nobody are suggesting anything else.

Ohh.. progress
How my freind ?

 

[Cuddles]

It’s also EM valves. These can even reach other galaxies and be dangerous to those there maybe lives there…

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "valves". Secondly, no it's not. The particles within the jets will certainly emit radiation, but the jets themselves are a phenomenon entirely caused by gravity and conservation of angular momentum.

I have the same right to believe, - as you have, as Stephen Hawking & Co have and as well as everybody else..

You certainly have the right to believe whatever you like. We have the right to point out that your beliefs are a pile of nonsensical crap. However, your comment here has nothing whatsoever to do with the portion of my post that you quoted just before it. It's bad enough when your nonsense is at least vaguely related to what other people have said, but when you start randomly typing words without even considering what they are supposed to be about it's just sad.

Right
When lights is affected by extremely stretches space, light too will stretch, and hence change frequencym and you can't see it.

Once again, why did you start off with "right"? I pointed out that the behaviour of light is not relevant to the behaviour of something that is not light. The word "right" would normally indicate that you agree with me, but you then continue dribbling on about the behaviour of light. Worse, this time you're spouting off about a particular behaviour of light that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we have been talking about.

The cause of the jest is not known, there are only hypothesis.

I assume you were trying to say something along the lines of "The causes of jets are not known". If that is the case, you are simply wrong. Angular momentum is very well understood, and similar behaviour to these jets can be modelled here on Earth. If your crap here is based on the assumption that we don't know where these jets come from and therefore your imagination is as valid as established scientific theories, you are once again incredibly wrong.

Once again all what I claims (not what I mention I believe, but what I claims) is all build on consequences of the same innocent and simple assumption that: matter contracts space

Yes, we know. The problem you have is that your assumption alternates between demonstrably wrong and utterly incoherent, depending on which of your posts we choose to look at (I won't dignify them with the term "read").

Normally we call the result of that: a magnetic field.

No we don't.

I call this (fundamentally) space in motion. (SW)

What you choose to call things is really irrelevant.

This is what a magnetism really field is.

No it isn't.

Therefore, if matter falls into a black holes, space will follows that matter, and hence space will “spin” into the black hole as well.

No.

A “spinning magnetic field” pointing towards the black hole is born.

No.

This also mean that matter will be stronger attracted because of the magnetic field, and hence matter will speed up.

No.

If matter speed up the spinning magnetic field will be stronger.

No.

It’s a self self-perpetuating process, and yes this magnetic field is pointing towards the centre in the black hole. (not because I want it, but because it must)

And no. All in all, not the best effort really.

And as mentioned this is not something I believe, but a simple “facts” if it is correct that matter and space is connected.

No, this is something you blindly believe based on a complete lack of logic and reason, having started from a complete lack of understanding and false assumptions.

You already know that space and matter is connected, so I am not completely alone far out On Jens Peter Jensen ploughed field.

I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean, but given that you don't think it's true, I'm reasonably sure that it actually is.

Remember if Andromeda had an active black hole pointing to us, the jet could reach us with deadly effect. We are talking about a huge force.

And if my aunt was a man she'd be the president of Mars.

I mean off course the information light contains .

Oh, of course. Silly us for not realising that you didn't mean something that you didn't say and had never heard of until we told you about it.

But well, this isn’t my business, but so far I know Stephen hawking invented the “twin Universe” of that reason.

I can't help wondering what you keep referring to with this "twin universe" thing. It's certainly not a theory Stephen Hawking has ever promoted.

But since we do not know how much space can stretch / deform this is really a dead end and a BIG problem.
If space continues to deform towards infinity, Stephen Hawking could be right, and things could be very strange. - (But I don’t believe so).

Once again, nothing you say here has any connection at all to the post you were replying to. If you're going to just post insane ramblings, at least have the decency not to pretend it's actually relevant to anything.

Because this (in the end) is a dead end, from a certain point we only have our imagination left to support us what really going on in a black hole.
I claims that the jet must be caused by the black hole.

You claim a lot of things. So far every single claim you have made has been hilariously wrong. This is actually a slight improvement, since it turns out that the jets are actually caused by black holes. However, where you get it wrong this time is that, as I already explained, it is not actually anything to do with it being a black hole, it's simply the presence of a large gravitational attraction. The jets don't come out of black holes as you imagine, they are caused by gravity and conservation of momentum in the accretion disc around it. None of the matter in the jets has ever been inside a black hole. If black holes didn't exist and it was simply a big lump of rock of the same size and mass, the jets would still be there.

It’s to my opinion an enormously powerful magnetic field driving by invisible matter curling inside the event horizon / black hole.

As has been noted previously, your opinion is less than worthless.

In this case I believe in “dark matter” - but build on know elementary particles. We can’t see this because space is stretching so much that visible light can’t exist.

Who cares about visible light? We can detect light with pretty much any wavelength if we choose to.

Fundamentally black hole is the result of that matter of a galaxy consumes space, the shape of is not ball shaped, but rather funnel shaped.
Orbiting particles give the black hole much stronger attracting force. Spinning space is dragged into the hole.

Yet more gibberish.

I also believe that matter can escape, also after reaching the event horizon.

Believe all you like, but it's pretty much the definition of an event horizon that nothing can get out. If matter can get out, it's not an event horizon.

Remember Einstein had a problem to accept the nature of a flexible space.

No he didn't.

 

[steenkh]

Ohh.. progress
How my freind ?

I doubt that you have made much progress. As I said, nobody has suggested anything but that the jets are caused by the black hole. You seem to be unable to understand that the jets are not material from inside the black hole.

 

[Bjarne]

http://video.google.com/videosearch...sult_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQqwQwBQ#

 

[steenkh]

A video recommended by Bjarne is not a very attractive proposition. What is it about?

 

[Bjarne]

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "valves".

I am sure you know what vvawes is.

The particles within the jets will certainly emit radiation, but the jets themselves are a phenomenon entirely caused by gravity and conservation of angular momentum.

Only speculation.

I pointed out that the behaviour of light is not relevant to the behaviour of something that is not light.

If you ask RC all EM wawes (with vv) is light.
I off course do not agree.

I can't help wondering what you keep referring to with this "twin universe" thing. It's certainly not a theory Stephen Hawking has ever promoted.

Yes it is...
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sult_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQqwQwBQ#

You claim a lot of things. So far every single claim you have made has been hilariously wrong.

You will not know before measuring.
Until then your believes aren’t better than mine.

This is actually a slight improvement, since it turns out that the jets are actually caused by black holes.
However, where you get it wrong this time is that, as I already explained, it is not actually anything to do with it being a black hole, it's simply the presence of a large gravitational attraction.

You don’t know if the attraction is “gravitational”
It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

• The nature of gravity.
• The nature of central gravity
• The cause of black holes.
• How much mass there really are in black holes.
• What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.
• How space and matter is connected and interacts.

The jets don't come out of black holes as you imagine, they are caused by gravity and conservation of momentum in the accretion disc around it.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

• The nature of gravity.
• The nature of central gravity
• The cause of black holes.
• How much mass there really are in black holes.
• What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.
• How space and matter is connected and interacts.

None of the matter in the jets has ever been inside a black hole.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

• The nature of gravity.
• The nature of central gravity
• The cause of black holes.
• How much mass there really are in black holes.
• What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.
• How space and matter is connected and interacts.

If black holes didn't exist and it was simply a big lump of rock of the same size and mass, the jets would still be there.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

• The nature of gravity.
• The nature of central gravity
• The cause of black holes.
• How much mass there really are in black holes.
• What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field or electromagnetism.
• How space and matter is connected and interacts.

Bjarne
Remember Einstein had a problem to accept the nature of a flexible space.
Cuddles
No he didn't.

He did. Everyone knows that he did not believe that’s space could expand “or” contract, even though he was the first to calculate excactly that. Later he said; this wasn’t his biggest mistake.

One day we will all know he did even a bigger mistake.
Mercury’s orbit anomaly is not caused by time dilation because off course distances also deforms too. Hence the yardstick is not definitive.

You claim a lot of things.
So far every single claim you have made has been hilariously wrong.

You even deny well known facts.

1. That Einstein’s did not believe in a flexible space.
2. That Stephen Hawking have invented the twin (or parallel) Universe.

Then it is off course not easy to discuss anything.

 

[steenkh]

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "valves".

I am sure you know what vvawes is.

Bjarne, you are hilarious!

 

[Dancing David]

And what does that prove? – Except that radiation escapes.

Bjarne, you make yourself look more foolsih than ever:

So we have three cows, one (Cow A) is far from the black hole, say one million kilometers, and one (Cow B) that is spiraling around the black hole and outside the event horizon, then there is the unfortunate cowsmoonaut (Cow C) that already passed the event horizon and is in the black hole.

Now given that each cow has a very bright light source strapped onto them, what can you say about the light from those sources.

Cow A, one million kilometers from the black hole. The light is seen.
Cow B, circling but not past the event horizon. Moving around the black hole, the light is still visible.
Cow C, no sign of its light source.

Now when some one talks to you about the accretion disk and you respond foolishly it is apparent that you do not realise that the accretion disk is both Cow A and Cow B but not Cow C.

 

[Bjarne]

So we have three cows, one (Cow A) is far from the black hole, say one million kilometers, and one (Cow B) that is spiraling around the black hole and outside the event horizon, then there is the unfortunate cowsmoonaut (Cow C) that already passed the event horizon and is in the black hole.

Now given that each cow has a very bright light source strapped onto them, what can you say about the light from those sources.

If you had read the post above you would have seen that I agree that light can be trapped, when it goes into orbit.

But not everything "falling" into a gravitational field goes into orbit.
That's the point when I claim that light possible can escape in the jet.
If the motion direction of light is pointing to the bottom of the funnel, and it doesn't goes in orbit what do you think it would happen in the center with that light ?
Cow C would be thrown out. And light ? - also thrown out I believe..

it is apparent that you do not realise that the accretion disk is both Cow A and Cow B but not Cow C

Off course and the cows in you garden too.

 

[ArcturusA]

You will not know before measuring.
Until then your believes aren’t better than mine.

Be we do have measurements. A century's worth of them, all confirming the predictions made by General Relativity.

It's only speculation without any coherent support.
Because you don’t know

• 
  The nature of gravity.

• 
  Yes we do, but you don't understand it.
  

  The cause of black holes.

  Yes we do, but you don't understand it.
  

  How much mass there really are in black holes.

  The mass of a black hole is easily measurable.
  

  [*]What is the underlaying cause of magnetic field og electromagnetism.

  Yes we do, but you don't understand it.
  
  

  He did. Everyone knows that he did not believe that’s space could expand “or” contract, even though he was the first to calculate excactly that. Later he said; this wasn’t his biggest mistake.

  Sounds like you're getting mixed up in what you don't understand.
  Einstein said his biggest blunder was introducing the cosmological term to his equations for GR in order to have a static universe (no expansion or contraction). He had no problem with curvature of spacetime.

 

[ArcturusA]

If you had read the post above you would have seen that I agree that light can be trapped, when it goes into orbit.

But not everything "falling" into a gravitational field goes into orbit.
That's the point when I claim that light possible can escape in the jet.
If the motion direction of light is pointing to the bottom of the funnel, and it doesn't goes in orbit what do you think it would happen in the center with that light ?
Cow C would be thrown out. And light ? - also thrown out I believe..


Off course and the cows in you garden too.

Bjarne, here is a picture of the Schwartzchild metric, describing a black hole in 2D.

Where is the funnel?

 

[dafydd]

Off course and the cows in you garden too.

If you don't understand it just say so,don't make silly remarks that make you look even more foolish.