Airbrush

Black holes are considered baryonic dark matter, along with neutron stars, white dwarfs, and brown dwarfs, by Wiki. Planets and asteroids would be considered baryonic dark matter, if they cannot be detected. I suppose as soon as we can detect an exoplanet, it is no longer dark matter. They think most dark matter is non-baryonic. "Early theories of dark matter concentrated on hidden heavy normal objects, such as black holes, neutron stars, faint old white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, as the possible candidates for dark matter, collectively known as MACHOs. Astronomical surveys failed to find enough of these hidden MACHOs. Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter, such as MACHOs and some forms of gas, were additionally speculated to make a contribution to the overall dark matter content, but evidence indicated such would constitute only a small portion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

I like your post. It is concise, poetically stated, and true, for now. In hundreds or thousands of years from now we may learn enough about Yellowstone to know what we could do to ONLY let out some pressure using advanced technology, without "popping the balloon". There would be some kind of robotic tunneling machines. Well before breaking through to the magma, they set a small nuke, or conventional explosives, to do the final excavating after the tunnelers are removed. Theoretically this planned eruption would reduce the pressure so that it is no longer a threat. Maybe it could just keep erupting, in a minor way, like Kilauea on the big island of Hawaii. Does anyone know why science programs always say Yellowstone erupts on the average of once every 600,000 years when my calculation is 730,000 years? "The three super eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago, forming the Island Park Caldera, the Henry's Fork Caldera, and Yellowstone calderas, respectively.[8] The Island Park Caldera supereruption (2.1 million years ago), which produced the Huckleberry Ridge Tuff, was the largest and produced 2,500 times as much ash as the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. The next biggest supereruption formed the Yellowstone Caldera (640,000 years ago) and produced the Lava Creek Tuff. The Henry's Fork Caldera (1.2 million years ago) produced the smaller Mesa Falls Tuff but is the only caldera from the Snake River Plain-Yellowstone (SRP-Y) hotspot that is plainly visible today.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

The new issue of Astronomy magazine has an article about planets that get thrown out of solar systems and are wondering around the galaxy. They are estimated to be many more than the number of stars in the galaxy. Young solar systems are thought to have many planets that either crash together, or get thrown out by gravitational interactions.

Very interesting revelation, thanks for that. I need to do some research on this later. This means very little statistical confidence. I just read up on wiki. The last 3 supereruptions were 640,000 years ago, 1,300,000 y.a., and 2,100,000 y.a. That means 800,000 years between the first 2 eruptions and 660,000 years between the second and last supereruption. That is an average of a supereruption every 730,000 years (2,100,000 - 1,300,000 = 800,000 and 1,300,000 - 640,000 = 660,000, and the average of the two is 800,000 + 660,000 = 1,460,000/2 = 730,000. That's an average of every 730,000 years. Where did they get an average of only 600,000 years? Also ground level was rising over the past several decades and then seems to have slowed in 2010. "...The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor between 2004 and 2008 — almost 3 inches (7.6 cm) each year — was more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[24] From mid-summer 2004 through mid-summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera moved upwards as much as 8 inches (20 cm) at the White Lake GPS station.[25][26] By the end of 2009, the uplift had slowed significantly and appeared to have stopped.[27] In January 2010, the USGS stated that "uplift of the Yellowstone Caldera has slowed significantly"[28] and that uplift continues but at a slower pace.[29] The U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory maintain that they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_caldera

Yellowstone is known to massively erupt, on the average, about every 600,000 years. Last eruption was 640,000 years ago, so we passed the average marker 40,000 years ago. 600,000 is only an average number, so there is no telling if it will erupt in a few years or decades from now, or not for 100,000 years. The expert I heard recently on Yellowstone is that there is no telling when it can erupt, but he thinks the next time it erupts it will not be a supereruption, or not a very great supereruption as many have speculated. If that is true, it could save the Earth from global warming, but only if it erupts not too much.

The Yellowstone supervolcano is overdue, so that seems the most immediate threat, after global warming. If we could only defuse Yellowstone by allowing it to erupt a little, just enough to relieve the pressure.

Has anyone heard that mining coal and drilling for oil are creating great caverns that can lead to earthquakes? That seems plausible.

The Earth is definitely growing from meteorites and that is natural, about 1,000 tons per year. I suppose space dust does not burn up in the atmosphere, but mixes into the atmosphere and gradually settles to Earth. "Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_space_dust_falls_to_Earth_each_year

Has anyone ever heard such an idea? Since Yellowstone Supervolcano may destroy the USA and do great harm to the entire Earth, why not coax it to "let off steam" so it cannot erupt massively? In the process we would need to make Yellowstone erupt, but control the eruption so just enough ash goes into the stratosphere and blocks enough sunlight to halt global warming. Also use the heat to generate power. This would require tunneling into Yellowstone and creating a channel for it to erupt just enough to prevent a super eruption. Is this possible? If so, it would save the Earth from destruction, stop global warming, and even might serve as an energy source.

There was an idea to combat global warming by sending millions of reflectors out into space to partially block the sunlight from Earth. Maybe those screens can serve 2 purposes, (1) block sun rays and cool the Earth, and (2) solar cells gather energy for Earth. A Dyson sphere totally encapsulates the Earth. That is going too far, just block enough sunlight to cool the Earth.

Spyman: ".....The slighly larger neutron star with Earth's 'neutron' volume added, would have a radius of ~12 000.007 meters, around 7 millimeters thicker." Very interesting! Thanks for that. So the results would be what is left of the Earth, after a great deal of it was converted into energy, the Earth material would be like a thin layer of paint covering a smooth sphere 12 km radius (which I always convert into units I am familiar with) which is about 14.4 miles in diameter (12 X 2 = 24 X 0.6 = 14.4). Yes Space Noob gravity works at the speed of light, so the speeding neutron star would start pulling the Earth out of a Sun orbit and towards itself. The effects would be dramatic. We might even feel the abrupt movement of the Earth. Then the atmosphere would be stripped away by tremendous winds that blow out towards the sky, and we would could not breath air. Then it would suck up the oceans and everything loose. Then the Earth would begin to accrete to the Neutron star like a liquid. Even though the Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, its' mass is nothing compared to a neutron star of a few solar masses. I'd like to see an episode of "The Universe" that shows by cgi what it would look like for a neutron star traveling 833 miles per second towards Earth, and how Earth would be accreted.

My question for Rolando is what would we see if we could see a large asteroid approaching a black hole? Would it never penetrate the event horizon? Why do we see quasars? Any light that passes the event horizon is gone inside, never to be seen again. Any light exactly at the event horizon will orbit the black hole forever. And any light outside the black hole will travel to us at light speed.

I think what the opening post suggests is that if we were to observe an asteroid get sucked into a black hole, we would never see it disappear into the black hole. I don't think so, and what about the sparks that would fly off the black hole? I think we would see the asteroid get eaten, or some of it getting eaten since black holes are messy eaters. Most of what falls into a black hole is blasted away from it. From Wiki, we can detect x-rays coming from matter falling into a black hole: "Due to conservation of angular momentum, gas falling into the gravitational well created by a massive object will typically form a disc-like structure around the object. Friction within the disc causes angular momentum to be transported outward, allowing matter to fall further inward, releasing potential energy and increasing the temperature of the gas.[92] In the case of compact objects such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes, the gas in the inner regions becomes so hot that it will emit vast amounts of radiation (mainly X-rays), which may be detected by telescopes. This process of accretion is one of the most efficient energy-producing processes known; up to 40% of the rest mass of the accreted material can be emitted in radiation.[92] (In nuclear fusion only about 0.7% of the rest mass will be emitted as energy.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes#Accretion_of_matter

Here is my question for any science or math expert. If such a hypervelocity neutron star was to hit the Earth, what would be the effects? It would pass through the Earth like a bullet through a cloud of gas. After it absorbed the entire Earth, in a matter of seconds, how thick a layer of neutron star material would the Earth add to the 15-mile-wide neutron star? If a bucket of neutron star material has the mass of Mt Everest, how much neutron star material would the Earth's mass be equivalent to?

Thanks for the info Spyman. That neutron star would take 16 minutes to pass through our Sun (traveling 833 miles/second, with sun diameter 800,000 miles). It would take less than a quarter of a second to punch through our atmosphere and another 10 seconds to pass through the Earth and out the other side without slowing down. I hate to think about what it would do to Earth in the process. Probably absorb the entire Earth, crushing it into a new thin layer on the surface of the neutron star.

The speeding neutron star is traveling 833 miles per second and it is only about 15 miles in diameter. So it is rather streamlined and I wonder if it could pass right through a solar mass star without disrupting it?

Very interesting symbols, thanks for the link. I should memorize those.

Thanks imatfaal for the info. Now I just figured out the fancy notation. The mass of VY Canis Majoris is 30 to 40 solar masses. And the most masssive star is 35 times the radius (or diameter) of the Sun.

I looked up this giant star on wiki and it only tells how large it is, about 2,000 times the Sun's diameter. It doesn't tell how many solar masses it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris The most massive star is believed to be R136a1 (I wish it had a massive sounding name like Gigantor) was discovered in 2010, at 265 solar masses. And wiki doesn't tell you how large it is in solar terms (radius, diameters), funny that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1

A quasar is the energy output of an active supermasssive black hole. How is a black hole not part of a quasar? The power souce is the black hole, which is feeding on gas, dust, and other stars. After it gobbles up all matter in the vicinity, it goes black and silent. Here is my question, do all quasars have polar jets?

A quasar is the bright result of a supermassive black hole at the center of an active galaxy. A quasar is a kind of active galactic nucleus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

Interesting neutron star. They can't figure out what accelerated it, maybe a supernova? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J0822-4300 The amount of mass an object gains by moving at 3 Million miles per hour (833.33 miles per second) is only 0.2% the speed of light, is very, very tiny. There are atoms in space, but so rarified that the amount of friction is very, very tiny. Dark matter, as we barely understand it, would not cause friction because it is not atoms. Matter just passes through it, no problem. If hypervelocity stars are possible then hypervelocity black holes are also possible. In a binary system of a star and a black hole, they could interact with other stars or black holes and the black hole companion could get thrown out.

That is obviously a quasar, which is a supermassive black hole that is active.

Arch is right. "Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe...". This means 17% of all forms of matter is regular matter, or 4.88 times as much dark matter as regular matter. Roughly 5 times as much dark matter as regular matter, and the ratio is 5/6 of all matter is dark. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter The last news I heard about Kepler was about 6 months ago, I think, and no mention of all exoplanets having such low density. Kepler sees the most massive planets that orbit very close to their star first. As time goes by they will detect smaller planets in farther out orbits.

Your time slows down, or your clock ticks slower, when you travel faster or are closer to a large gravitational field, than other people. "Moving forward in time" is only a perception you have because your friends and family have clocks which tick faster.