Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

NASA observers have reported, a giant black hole has been caught red-handed dipping into a cosmic cookie jar of stars by NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer.

This is the first time astronomers have seen the whole process of a black hole eating a star, from its first to nearly final bites."

The have also stated the AGN have been observed in deep space that emitt powerful energy beams

Of course, I have hypothesised that the black holes in the center of many galaxy observed are really a central vortex of the galaxy.

It then emitts a powerfull energy beam (Jet as you called it) that spawns more galaxies along the route of the AGN energy beam in the Universe's atmospheric ether.

What about the ether? With out it there would be no creation of vortexs that form more galaxies and stars etc. along the route of the AGN's (ENERGY BEAMS)

In fact a star that got too close to the eye (black hole ) of the Milky Way was detected falling into its eye (Black Hole).

No AGN was generated as the center of our galaxy is relatively lower rotating speed of light.

If the central core velocity of any Galaxy is approaching the velocity of light an AGN energy beam is formed which even can approach a lighouse transmitting beam of radio waves along it route in the ether of space whih it traverses.


Do not discount the ether theory, as Mikelson and Morley said did not exist --it does!
.

Moderation Note: Quoted private message removed in accordance with the site rule:

Important: Never post PMs or e-mails from other users without asking their permissions first. PMs and e-mails are considered private communication... Posts containing PMs and e-mails can be deleted by the admins and might get you banned.

Why private , there ought to be an editorial page to challenge miss-statement and charges of Moderators....!

Their reasons are not called for. When NASA releases the above statement it is not my fault if Modest does not have connection (that I do ) with NASA
I refererenced NASA true stastements based on there observations.

As to M and M slit experiments they missed the reason why the Ether is there. I am correct it is there an my measurement have proven it to be so (In my book is a summary of the test to detect the ether.Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution. via My atmopheric electron particle beam^C test.

Sorry to leave this interesting topic,and site, sincerely Thomas Edward Fairbairn FRIPRO

[FRIPRO]

Further reference on this subject at:
http://vsop.mtk.nao.ac.jp/~inoue/doc...gaki06_000.pdf

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Further reference on this subject at:
http://vsop.mtk.nao.ac.jp/~inoue/doc...gaki06_000.pdf

That's interesting Fripro, I was just reading:

Circular Polarisation from ... - Google Book Search

in preparing a response to Pluto along the same lines as your link.

~modest

[FRIPRO]

With respect to the predominate red shift (Quote Modest)

I would like to point out (before I leave this forumn: If one were looking in the direction of rotation of the Universe away from Earth they would observe red shifts in abundance from Earth;however, as we see lower Blue Shift it is because we can not observe the rotating side of the Universe towards the Earth--due to its vast size and our position within it.

Reference Hublbe space telescope and others.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Fripro and Modest

I have read your posts, but I'm in the middle of reading some relevant papers so I can respond to modest.

Don't you hate it when people make you read more.

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,its the fun of the game.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

After reading hundreds of papers on the subject, you get this feeling If you know what I mean.

Feelings are what they are, but if you're making claims and refuting the claims of others then you need to throw some support and back up behind it. That inactive black holes can create jets without feeding or that mass can escape from inside a black hole... for example, seem like pretty strange claims to me. I'd be very curious to read any scientific literature making those same claims.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Galaxies go through an evolution of form. The mass and density of the centre Nucleon determines the form of the galaxy. Inactivity does not mean inactivity with respect with either the Nucleon or the galaxy.

“Inactivity” or “inactive galaxy” simply refers to galaxies which do not have AGN (active galactic nuclei). They are sometimes tersely called “normal galaxies” (as 99% of all observed galaxies have dormant nuclei), but are more properly called “quiescent galaxies”. The main characteristic that distinguishes active galaxies from quiescent galaxies is that the former has a source of intense luminosity in its nucleus and the latter does not. The scientific community is in good agreement that the majority of all (both active and quiescent) galaxies have supermassive black holes at their core.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for the origin of the main jet. This comes from the centre of any compact object. Can anybody prove that, not yet.

Indeed, the source of an AGN is compact. A black hole (even a supermassive black hole) is easily considered compact. Its radius is given by,

or, in solar masses and astronomical distance units,

This makes the black hole at the center of the Milky Way just under a tenth of an A.U. in radius or a tenth of the distance from the sun to the earth.

Nevertheless, it appears Pluto is referring to a “compact object” such as Hoyle and Fowler proposed was responsible for the energy of AGN in 1963 (On the nature of strong radio sources). They took a step in the right direction claiming there was a single, compact, gravitational source causing quasars. It was, however, not a black hole they considered, but a star of about one billion solar masses (one billion times the mass of our sun). They remark in the paper “The concept of stellar-type objects with masses up to approximately 10^8 solar masses is of course strange...”, and indeed it is. But they correctly focus on one important characteristic of AGN—that the source of energy of an AGN is very small (as compared to something like a globular cluster). And also consider the possibility of accreting matter gravitationally as a source of energy.

As far as proving the source is compact (or small in size): When x-ray satellites were put in orbit in the 70’s it was found that quasars emitted strongly in x-ray wavelengths and the energy output varied in this wavelength by as much as a factor of two in as quickly as hours, minutes, or even seconds. This sets an upper limit to the size of the engine generating the quasar because it can only be altered as a whole on the timescale that light can travel from one side of the quasar to the other. This flux variability timescale does indeed demonstrate that AGN are generated in a very compact space.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Accretion is the main part, that most papers say creates the main jet.

Yes—where accretion means attracting and gaining mass gravitationally. The massive amounts of energy required of an AGN (including its jets and EMR output) needs an engine capable of delivering serious amounts of energy. The gravitational potential of a supermassive black hole is an hypothesis put forward in the mid 1960's. Observations have agreed with this hypothesis and helped explain the taxonomy of many different astronomical objects (Quasars, radio galaxies, Seyfert nuclei, Blazars, etc.) under one model (supermassive black holes). It really has explained a lot, but there's still a lot to learn about the exact mechanics involved.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The infall flow has not got the capacity to create jets that are able to reach speeds close to the speed of light,

Do you have a source for this?

A supermassive black hole is more efficient at converting mass into energy than more traditional stellar processes:

Since the early 1960s there was much speculation about how the observed luminosities could be produced within such a small region. Thermonuclear reactions, which have efficiencies of 0.7% at best (in the case of fusion of H into He), were quickly eliminated...

...Epsilon is the efficiency of conversion of mass into energy, and depends on the spin of the black hole, varying between 6% if the black hole is not spinning, and 42% if the black hole is maximally spinning.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0411247v1.pdf

In 1963, the specific calculations were originally done by Edwin Salpeter (who by the way, just died about a month ago)

Accretion of Interstellar Matter by Massive Objects - E Salpeter

This work (and a lot of subsequent work) shows that the extreme gravitational potential of a SMBH provides an energy source capable of driving AGN characteristics including relativistic jets.

The specific models of jets based on accretion have been verified (or at least supported) by recent observations,

The inner jet of an active galactic nucleus as revealed by a radio-to-big gamma-ray outburst

If you don’t have a subscription to Nature, you can read about the study in this Space.com article:

SPACE.com -- Powerful Black Hole Jet Explained

Or, you can request a PDF of the study from the head author, Alan Marscher, at his University web page (it’s the 4th one down):

Alan Marscher: Publications in Scientific Journals

Originally Posted by Pluto

not only that to give it magnetic properties that keep their straight direction for millions of years.

While the characteristics are more complicated than being straight (as Fripro's link above gets into), I understand what you mean, that the jet is always pointed in the same general direction. If the black hole is rotating though, I don't see why the jets would be pointed anywhere but perpendicular to the accretion disc.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for matter been sucked in to black holes. I will give you information of the growth of compact bodies from Neutrons, to quarks composites and Nutrino ultra dense matter.

Matter being pulled into black holes isn’t the problem. The problem is claiming that matter that’s pulled into (inside) the black hole, is “then ejected” from it. Such a claim requires that matter be ejected from inside the black hole’s event horizon. This is impossible by the very definition of a black hole and all theory describing it.

A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, including electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light), can escape its pull after having fallen past its event horizon.

Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theorizing about compact, degenerate matter doesn’t change this. A body made of electron degenerate matter that is over the Chandrasekhar limit (~1.4 solar masses) will collapse. A body made of neutron degenerate matter over the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit (~2.5 solar masses) will collapse. We can then suppose some new degenerate matter, such as quark degenerate matter, preon degenerate matter, and string degenerate matter. We can suppose limits for each saying quark stars collapse at 30 solar masses and preon stars collapse at 60 solar masses. But, this line of thinking does not help matter escape a supermassive black hole. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has 3.7 *million* solar masses. Even if it has some strange and exotic unknown degenerate matter inside it, its escape velocity will still be larger than the speed of light. In order for anything to escape it, it would need to go much, much faster than the speed of light which is not possible.

Jets therefore cannot originate from inside the black hole unless it is breaking some of the best known laws of physics. And, there’s no need to propose new laws of physics or breaking the laws of physics. The best theory of AGNs suggest that jets originate from the accretion discs collimated by magnetic field lines and ejected without ever crossing the event horizon and observations are tending to agree.

Originally Posted by Pluto

In actual fact they dance together, the driver is the ultra dense plasma (BH), the disc surrounding is probably a Neutron matrix and amongst other degenerate matter surrounding.

WE will never know because we will never be able to see within.

We’ll never be able to see in the event horizon of the black hole, but we can make observations of the accretion disc. X-ray spectroscopy (of iron, for example) has provided very good evidence of the accretion disc’s structure and relativistic nature not far (a few Schwarzschild radii) from the black hole.

Originally Posted by Pluto

So! the rule that nothing can escape from a black is in my opinion wrong.

If you agree that we cannot see in a black hole then you’ve come to a troublesome conclusion that light cannot escape a black hole but massive particles can (unless I've somehow misunderstood you). Such is not part of any recognizable physics of which I’m aware.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The ultra dense degenerate matter that forms the so called black hole is able to form the most powerful magnetic vortex to eject matter through it at close to the speed of light and because of the magnetic fields, the matter not to be affected by the extreme gravity of the so called black hole.

"Through it"? "not affected by gravity"? Is this a theory that you're aware of in the scientific community, or is this your idea?

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz


Hello Modest, thanks for the reading, "I'll be back"

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Modest. My main computer crashed and will not be fixed for a few days.

Until than th back up is working. You may need to read further the ABS and maybe open some of the links.

[0812.2483] Statistical Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Polarization
Statistical Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Polarization
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)

The emission mechanism and the origin and structure of magnetic fields in gamma-ray burst (GRB) jets are among the most important open questions concerning the nature of the central engine of GRBs. In spite of extensive observational efforts, these questions remain to be answered and are difficult or even impossible to infer with the spectral and lightcurve information currently collected. Polarization measurements will lead to unambiguous answers to several of these questions.

[0811.0158] Transient jets in the symbiotic prototype Z Andromedae
Transient jets in the symbiotic prototype Z Andromedae
(Submitted on 2 Nov 2008)

Simultaneously, high-velocity satellite components appeared on both sides of the H-alpha and H-beta emission line profiles. They were launched asymmetrically with the red/blue velocity ratio of 1.2 - 1.3. From about mid-August they became symmetric. Their spectral properties indicated ejection of bipolar jets collimated within an average opening angle of 6.1 degrees.

[0810.5470] INTEGRAL and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy of GX 339-4 During Hard/Soft Intermediate and High/Soft States in the 2007 Outburst
INTEGRAL and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy of GX 339-4 During Hard/Soft Intermediate and High/Soft States in the 2007 Outburst
(Submitted on 30 Oct 2008)

Our results imply evolution in the coronal properties, the most important one being the transition from a compact corona in the first observation to the disappearance of coronal material in the second and re-appearance in the third. This fact, accompanied by the plasma ejection events detected in radio on February 4 to 18, suggest that the ejected medium is the coronal material responsible for the hard X-ray emission.

[0810.5311] Super-Orbital Variability in Hard X-rays
Super-Orbital Variability in Hard X-rays
(Submitted on 29 Oct 2008)

This phase shift, when taken together with the near-coincident onset of the $\sim$46 d modulation and the low/hard X-ray state, leads us to speculate that the modulation could herald transient jet formation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3185
Jets and environment of microquasars
(Submitted on 19 Jun 2008)

A generic scenario for microquasar jets is proposed, classifying the observed jets into three main categories, with different jet morphologies (and sizes) corresponding to different scales of vacuous environments surrounding them.

Interesting reading
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3045
Evidence for polar jets as precursors of polar plume formation

Authors: N.-E. Raouafi, G. J. D. Petrie, A. A. Norton, C. J. Henney, S. K. Solanki
(Submitted on 18 Jun 2008)


And

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1700
On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources

Authors: V. Bosch-Ramon, D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian
(Submitted on 12 May 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: There are three Galactic jet sources, from which TeV emission has been detected: LS 5039, LS I +61 303 and Cygnus X-1. These three sources show power-law tails at X-rays and soft gamma-rays that could indicate a non-thermal origin for this radiation. In addition, all three sources apparently show correlated and complex behavior at X-ray and TeV energies. In some cases, this complex behavior is related to the orbital motion (e.g. LS 5039, LS I +61 303), and in some others it is related to some transient event occurring in the system (e.g. Cygnus X-1, and likely also LS I +61 303 and LS 5039). Based on modeling or energetic grounds, it seems difficult to explain the emission in the X-/soft gamma-ray and the TeV bands as coming from the same region (i.e. one-zone). We also point out the importance of the pair creation phenomena in these systems, which harbor a massive and hot star, for the radio and the X-ray emission, since a secondary pair radiation component may be significant in these energy ranges. Finally, we discuss that in fact the presence of the star can indeed have strong impact on, beside the non-thermal radiation production, the jet dynamics.

It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation.

Modest, by far I have not even read 1% of the papers given to me.

This link is quite interesting
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1337
Coupled radio and X-ray emission and evidence for discrete ejecta in the jets of SS 433
(Submitted on 8 Apr 2008)


and this one

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0322
Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon

Authors: Ramesh Narayan, Jeffrey E. McClintock
(Submitted on 3 Mar 2008)

Abstract: As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF). An ADAF is a poor radiator, and the ion temperature can approach 10^{12} K near the center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature typically capped at ~10^{9-11} K. The foundational papers predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer simulations. Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that races inward. It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes through the hole's event horizon. One thus expects black holes in the ADAF regime to be unusually faint. Indeed, this is confirmed by a comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars, which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems. The black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of ~100-1000. The natural explanation is that a neutron star must radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon. The case for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*, which is immune to caveats on jet outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is especially compelling. These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars.

[modest]

Well, those are all nice links, Pluto. But, after spending all evening reading them—I don't see any of them supporting your conclusions at all.

It's almost like you've just ignored all my questions, discussion, and concerns, and decided to post a bunch of random obfuscating links.

Notice the site rule:

Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

Originally Posted by Pluto

You may need to read further the ABS and maybe open some of the links.

It certainly is more than a little irritating to be told I have to review 161 pages of scientific literature to understand your position, only to spend 3 hours doing so finding nothing that illuminates your claims at all.

The one comment you made regarding the literature you linked shows a basic misunderstanding of the paper.

Originally Posted by Pluto

[0805.1700] On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources
On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources

Authors: V. Bosch-Ramon, D. Khangulyan, F. A. Aharonian
(Submitted on 12 May 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))

It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation.

Where the abstract says "massive and hot star" you seem to be thinking that is an alternative to a black hole. That is not the case. The paper isn't proposing a "compact object" as a substitute for an "ultra compact object". That is not at all what the paper is saying.

The paper discusses x-ray emissions and jets in X-ray Binary Star Systems. These are sometimes called 'microquasars' as they have quasar-like characteristics, but are much smaller and closer to earth (they're in our galaxy). X-ray binaries are binary systems. This means there are two gravitational sources (two objects) orbiting one another—a star and a black hole (or neutron star depending on the mass of the particular system in discussion). The black hole/neutron star is stripping the normal star of its mass and accreting it. The BH/NS makes an accretion disc, forms jets, and emits x-rays. These are all quasar-like characteristics.

It's reference to "the star" is then understood to mean the normal star that's orbiting with the BH/NS. It's not a substitute for the black hole, it's orbiting with the black hole. To think otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper's intent. Section 2.2, for example, titled "the role of the star" describes how the companion to the black hole/neutron star influences the microquasar characteristics.

Another example of the strong disconnect between your sources and your conclusions:

Originally Posted by Pluto

[0803.0322] Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon...

Why would you underline and bold the sentence above? It is evidence for the presence of an event horizon associated with a black hole. It observationally distinguishes between a stellar-sized black hole and a neutron star. That seems to be at complete odds with your stated claims.

Notice the last sentence of the abstract: "These two lines of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars."

The paper argues against compact, exotic stars as sources for AGN and other black hole-related phenomenon.

Originally Posted by paper linked above

The case for event horizons in both Sgr A and in the stellar-mass BHs is robust against appeals to strong gravity or the leading models of exotic stars... many indicators show that the event horizon is an inescapable reality.

It supports the case for general relativistic black holes and remarks that no form of degenerate matter can be viable in cases such as massive x-ray binaries or galactic nuclei.

Honestly, to support the case for a degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core—you cite a paper arguing against any such degenerate-compact-matter-like, exotic galactic core. The paper strongly supports what I've been saying... and you ironically tell me that I need to actually *open the links*!

I should tell you, Pluto. If you want to continue criticizing other people's positions (which are well-backed by evidence and theory) with your own strange claims then you need to do better than "you get this feeling If you know what I mean".

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

You said:

I should tell you, Pluto. If you want to continue criticizing other people's positions (which are well-backed by evidence and theory) with your own strange claims then you need to do better than "you get this feeling If you know what I mean".

You are miss understanding my position.

I do not have a position.

I keep on telling you that it will take me at least two more years of reading to undertsand the workings of the parts.

I have read your links and I find limited in information.

My aim is to understand the actual trigger that starts the jets.

So far all the papers that I have read talk around the subject. They are getting closer, but! they are limited by the tools that they are using.

In the last 12 mths, the papers have become better.

If you do not want me to share the links that I'm reading, thats fine.

It has been Xmas break and time has been limted so please do not expect answers that most scientists do not even know about.

Do you actually read the links?

If you have read the links than you have read them out of context when they write about compact matter.

What do you think is the main body that plays the main part?

The transition phase is the key.

This is not a new topic, Wheeler in 1996 wrote this paper.

[astro-ph/9606119] Black Hole X-ray Transients
Black Hole X-ray Transients

Authors: J. Craig Wheeler (Dept. of Astronomy, U. of Texas)
(Submitted on 19 Jun 1996)

Abstract: The observations and theory of the exciting new class of galactic black hole X-ray transients is reviewed. Seven of these systems have measured mass functions or mass estimates in excess of stable neutron stars, making them excellent black hole candidates. Two of them have revealed ``superluminal" radio jets. Study of the hard and soft radiation from these sources has given tight constraints on the physics of the viscosity of the accretion disk and promises firm proof that these systems contain black holes. This will allow us to search for black holes of more moderate mass and apply the knowledge of these systems to suspected supermassive black holes in AGN's. The most plausible mechanism for triggering the outburst of black hole candidate X-ray transients is the ionization thermal instability. The disk instability models can give the deduced mass flow in quiescence, but not the X-ray spectrum. Advection models that can account for the quiescent X-ray spectrum are difficult to match with the non-steady state, quiescent Keplerian disks. Self-irradiation of the disk in outburst may not lead to X-ray reprocessing as the dominant source of optical light, but may play a role in the ``reflare." The hard power-law spectrum and radio bursts may be non-thermal processes driven by the flow of pair--rich plasma from the disk at early times and due to the formation of a pair--rich plasma corona at late times. The repeated outbursts in systems like GRO J0422+32 suggest some sort of clock, but it is unlikely that it has anything to do with a simple X-ray heating of the companion star. These systems typically have low mass secondaries and their evolutionary origin is still mysterious.

Research into these area is moss important.

and yet the key issue in the formation of the jet has not been resolved. There are a number of theories and experiments on Z-pinch explaining the formation of jets and the resultant formation of Neutrons and their ultra compaction.

I stll have a month or more of reading on this subject.

I'm not interested in feeling right, I just want to know and understand. So I thank you for your time.