Airbrush

After some research into quasars I still cannot find answers to my questions about the mechanics of a quasar. How large are quasars? I assume the central supermassive black hole (SBH) that is probably at the center is on the order of Billions of solar masses. We already know that the extreme yet compact brightness of a quasar is not from the relativistic jets. If we were looking down a polar jet, then what we are looking at is called a blazar. But most quasars are not blazars, right? So the extreme brightness of a quasar does not come from the jets, but must be the result of massive amounts of gas and dust that are streaming into the SBH on the inner edge of the accretion disc. How can a quasar be the size of our solar system, if the diameter of the event horizon of a Billion-solar-mass black hole is probably not nearly as large as our solar system? What is the Swartzchild Radius of a Billion-solar-mass black hole?

Space-time cannot exist without matter. Matter did not exist until the big bang, unless the big bang happened within an already existing universe, in which case the big bang erased a previous universe and introduced another.

Diversified sources of energy is the solution. The US and China will be tempted to keep using coal, since both countries have a large cheap coal supply. Homes, cars, and industries could be made much more energy efficient. Water should be heated by pipes on the roofs of houses, better insulation, and solar cells on roofs, stuff like that. I would like to see more designs for tidal and ocean wave generation of power. Someone above said that nuclear FISSION is an expensive energy source, I would think nuclear FUSSION would be way more expensive, but cleaner. I'm waiting for the price to come down so everyone can have their own nuclear FUSSION reactor in their back yard.

That is fascinating! So that means that about a Billion years ago the surface of the ocean was probably not a wild boiling cauldron of constant half-mile high mega-tsunamics crashing onto all the earth's coastline. By a Billion years ago the oceans had settled down to be rather sedate. The moon's orbit around the earth was (about what?) less than 2 orbits in a 24-hour period? And tides were only a few times higher than they are today? As the other poster noted that would be quite a sight to see the very early earth of boiling molten rock tsunamics several miles high, caused by intense tidal action, along with the bombardment of meteors and comets, as a constant condition for millions of years! Such extreme conditions are beyond imagining.

That is interesting info Klaynos. Then quasars may have the huge jets but they are so far away we can only see a point source. Is something going on with quasars that makes them so bright and appear "quasi-stellar" coming from a region as small as light weeks across? Or is that an illusion? Are quasars seen along a jet pointed directly at earth, like a gamma ray burst? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is what I wiki'ed on "Rayleigh criterion": "The resolving power of a lens is ultimately limited by diffraction (see Point Spread Function, Airy disc). The lens' aperture is analogous to a two-dimensional version of the single-slit experiment. Light passing through the lens interferes with itself creating a ring-shaped diffraction pattern, known as the Airy pattern, if the phase of the transmitted light is taken to be spherical over the exit aperture. The result is a blurring of the image. An empirical diffraction limit is given by the Rayleigh criterion invented by Lord Rayleigh" So quasars may in reality have the shape of an active galaxy, but since it is so far away the jets blur into a spherical shape? But how does that translate to a region of brightness measured at only "solar system sized" or light weeks across because variations occur in weeks? Also the jets are exceptionally energetic and bright. But isn't there something extraordinary happening on the inner edge of the accretion disk?

I'm glad to hear you say that DH. Then about a Billion years ago huge tsunamis hundreds of meters high would be the ocean norm. Tidal pools, with mild, nutrient-rich conditions would form all around the limits of tidal advance.

That is great material iNow, thanks for that. Primordial, the black hole can spin in its' own space-time, and what we see is only our impression.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, and I do appreciate the efforts you have made to explain this point. It is still beyond me. Then what you are saying is that suppose we launch a 100 kgm rocket towards a solar mass black hole. Suppose also that the rocket turns around and attempts to slow down its approach so we can get a better view of what happens. As it gets closer the BH gravity will overcome the rocket and drag it into oblivion very quickly. As the rocket is crushed and spaggetified the remaining flash will linger outside the EH forever? Then someday when we discover such a nearby BH and we can get a close enough view of it, we should see ghostly images all around it of matter that fell into it during its existence?

That is interesting info Mokele. That was a question that has bothered me a long time. The possibility of life originating around geo-thermal vents is also interesting. I always supposed the deep ocean conditions were too extreme for life to originate, and that life had to originate in very favorable mild conditions. Then it could migrate and adapt to extreme conditions. But deep ocean vents may be even more stable and not upset by drastic changes on the surface.

Then such frozen images should accumulate over time, and we would be able to see many accumulated frozen images of objects that HAD entered the black hole over Billions of years (or as long as it has existed). Because scientists do not report these frozen red-shifted images clustered around black holes is why I say I find that hard to believe. But you may be right, and we just have not identified these YET. Or have they seen such things?

I thought that gravity is more like a warping of space than a particle that leaves the massive object and travels outward. Have they even proven that gravitons exist? Gravitons are supposed to be without mass. I don't know, maybe you are on to something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitons

I tried to find a reference for you, but failed. It is common knowledge the moon is moving away from the earth an inch or two per year. A Billion years ago it was much closer. There was a History Channel program which stated ancient tides were a THOUSAND times greater than they are now, and that the moon was orbiting the earth much faster and closer than it is today. Life probably did not originate around deep-sea vents, but rather originated in much milder, nutrient rich tidal pools, then some species migrated to the deep-sea vents to evolve.

If matter falling into a supermassive black hole (SBH) will form relativistic jets that may be thousands of light-years long, why are quasars point sources of light and EM radiation only a few light weeks or light months across? My guess would be that quasars are the result of a relatively large amount of matter falling into a SBH, so there is more than just relativistic jets, but also unfathomable explosions going off continuously all around the inner edge of the accretion disk. Such explosive reactions require on the order of a solar mass per month.

If the moon was so close to the earth Billions of years ago when life originated, and the moon was whizzing around the earth several times per (24-hour) day, how could life originate in the midst of such violent tides that were a THOUSAND times higher than they are today? Huge tsunamis over a mile high would rush in and out several times per day.

I do not believe that an object falling into a black hole would appear to freeze. You would see it being accelerated and as it was compressed it would be heated to Billions of degrees and you would see some fireworks, depending upon the mass. If what you said was true, quasars and relativistic jets would not exist. What is so oversimplified? Quasars are the result of matter falling into supermassive black holes. Can we get a third party to mediate on this one?

Yes, but you can certainly watch an object approach the event horizon and see what happens before it passes the EH. You may see some crazy fireworks. Quasars are the result of matter before it crosses the EH.

Black holes are out of our current reach. Maybe in the future we will discover some closer to earth and we could perhaps send a probe to orbit the black hole while it tosses pebbles at it and watch what happens.

"Empty-space" is pre-big-bang potentiality. "Space-time" is post-big-bang actuality. Something does not come from nothing. I stand corrected. Empty-space is something, the "program" of existence. Sorry I cannot back up anything on this peculiar subject because it is cutting-edge. I am only exercising logical speculation.

Whatever amount above AZ is negligible and for all practical purposes zero.

Space is nothing. Space-time is something. Space-time is expanding. Dark energy is a property of space-time. We can see only space-time. Have they confirmed experimentally that virtual particles pop in and out of empty space? If so, that may only apply to space-time. I am trying to make a distinction between "space-time" and "space". Space-time is within the universe, space is outside of space-time.

We know that before the big bang there existed the incredibly complex program for a big bang to occur.

The universe is space-time. The universe is expanding into empty space. Beyond there is no matter at all, not even a few atoms per cubic LY, so it is not space-time, it is only space, black, cold empty space. Nothing is more simple than that.

A temp measuring device will not "pollute" the region being measured. A hypothetical region of space that is Absolute Zero will quickly suck all heat out of your measuring device, and will give you a reading of Absolute Zero.

Could black hole jets create and distribute heavier elements? Maybe so, quasar jets are so powerful that they can be seen from 13 Billion LY away 13 Billion years ago. Those incredibly bright yet compact areas may be as energetic as a supernova and certainly more energetic than nuclear fusion. "A super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year." That is 2.7 solar masses per day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

My favorite bit of trivia about black holes is that a black hole with the mass of the Earth would resemble a flat black marble the size of a walnut.