Black Holes n Xrays Split from Warp Drive

[ACG52]

the pics show a column of xrays and gamma coming off the edge of the disk.this means there is nothing there

No. What's there is a swirling cloud of gas surrounding the event horizon, which is heated by friction to the point where it generates x-rays and gamma rays, which then radiate perpendicular to the Black Holes rotational axis. The x-rays and gamma rays are not generated from inside the event horizon, but are external.

[robomont]

im willing to accept that but it doesnt explain the void perpedicular to the hole itself.

 

am i missing something in this description.why can we see the eye of the blackhole.shouldnt it be covered in mass being sucked in.is it this mass that allows us to see the eye.does it distort the hole and make it visibly bigger than it really is.why is there a plain to bh.why doesnt it suck from all directions. unless there is a physics law that overrides gravity.and forces this powerful entity to conform?

if light must conform to the laws of gravity what laws does gravity conform to? who does gravity answer to?

my speculation is it conforms to an energy of a higher voltage rating than can be sustained in the bh.could the bh hold a mass of higgs particles?

curious minds want to know.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I will reiterate the earlier warning about sticking to the discussion and not hurling insults — this applies to all.

[robomont]

so are you saying the xrays shoot up into space then make a u turn and get sucked back in at the edge of the disk? that would make sense to me.but what is in the hollow eye?the void of the vortex.in a tornado or hurricane there is still air.would there be vacuum of space?would it be calm or safe to be in that area.is gravity nullified in that area due to some physics law im unaware of.

[ACG52]

so are you saying the xrays shoot up into space then make a u turn and get sucked back in at the edge of the disk? that would make sense to me.but what is in the hollow eye?the void of the vortex.in a tornado or hurricane there is still air.would there be vacuum of space?would it be calm or safe to be in that area.is gravity nullified in that area due to some physics law im unaware of.

There is no void. A rotating Black Hole actually drags space along in the direction of rotation, an phenomena known as frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging). It's this rotation which gives rise to the swirling of the accretion disk, and collimates the radiation into the polar jets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_jet#Relativistic_jet

[robomont]

ok.so the frame dragging is making it look like a hole? im greatful for your opinion and its changing mine.its just to wrap my mind around the void part in the center.the rest of you say seems resonable.but if no energy is escaping then the energy is concentrating in this hole.if so then if a blackhole doesnt die then eventually all gets swallowed up and compressed.there has to be a fundimental law that stops and reverses this law or else the universe would have been swallowed up eons ago?

could the bh be a massive bundle of higgs particles.or some particle at an even higher energy level?

[ACG52]

ok.so the frame dragging is making it look like a hole?

No, it looks like a hole because it spherical and non-radiating. The frame dragging is what makes it look like it's surrounded by a hurricane of stellar gas, and what compresses the gas so that it radiates. A non-rotating BH would still look like a hole in space (assuming you could see it at all) without the swirling gasses.

 

then if a blackhole doesnt die then eventually all gets swallowed up and compressed.there has to be a fundimental law that stops and reverses this law or else the universe would have been swallowed up eons ago?

 

What you have to remember is two things.

 

The first is that the total gravitational field of a Black Hole is no greater than the equivalent number of solar masses (the solar mass is the usual unit of measurement for the mass of a hole). The reason it's a Black Hole is because that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. For instance, a one solar mass black hole would have an event horizon at about 146,000 km, which is within the orbit of Mercury. Which means that anything getting that close would be sucked into the hole. But the total mass is still only 1 solar mass, which means the total gravitational field is the same as the sun's. So if the sun were to suddenly collapse into a BH, the Earth would not notice any gravitational effect, i.e. our orbit would be unchanged. The supermassive BH at the center of the Milky Way is about 4 million solar masses, but the event horizon is only 6.25 light hours, or about the orbit of Uranus. So objects further than that could avoid being sucked in. In fact, there are stars in orbit around the BH as close as 15 light hours, or about 2.5 times the distance of Uranus from the sun.

 

The second point is that the force of gravity falls off with the square of the distance, which means it diminishes pretty quickly, which of course ties in with the first point.

 

So in spite of it's huge mass and high gravity, Supermassive Black Holes have a very limited area of dominance. The most massive SBH detected so far is 17 Billion solar masses. It makes up about 59 percent of the central bulge, and 14 percent of the total mass of the compact, lenticular galaxy NGC 1277 which lies 220 million light-years away. But the stars outside the central bulge and in it's spiral arms orbit the SBH just as though the bulge were made up of 29 Billion normal stars.

Edited May 30, 2013 by ACG52

[SamBridge]

The first is that the total gravitational field of a Black Hole is no greater than the equivalent number of solar masses (the solar mass is the usual unit of measurement for the mass of a hole). The reason it's a Black Hole is because that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. For instance, a one solar mass black hole would have an event horizon at about 146,000 km, which is within the orbit of Mercury. Which means that anything getting that close would be sucked into the hole. But the total mass is still only 1 solar mass, which means the total gravitational field is the same as the sun's. So if the sun were to suddenly collapse into a BH, the Earth would not notice any gravitational effect, i.e. our orbit would be unchanged. The supermassive BH at the center of the Milky Way is about 4 million solar masses, but the event horizon is only 6.25 light hours, or about the orbit of Uranus. So objects further than that could avoid being sucked in. In fact, there are stars in orbit around the BH as close as 15 light hours, or about 2.5 times the distance of Uranus from the sun.

I'm starting to think that's not necessarily true. Force of gravity = (G * m)/r. Since you have the same mass but a smaller radius, it should in effect increase the gravitational strength. It would create a higher acceleration due to gravity which would in effect increase the range because in all instances of gravity, the strength get's weaker proportional to the square of the distance.

Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

I'm starting to think that's not necessarily true. Force of gravity = (G * m)/r. Since you have the same mass but a smaller radius, it should in effect increase the gravitational strength. It would create a higher acceleration due to gravity which would in effect increase the range because in all instances of gravity, the strength get's weaker proportional to the square of the distance.

 

It does create a higher acceleration, but only at the smaller radius. As the radius increases, the acceleration falls off. A higher acceleration with a smaller radius does not increase the 'range'. And you've got the equation wrong. It's F = (G * m)/r² You forgot to square the radius.

[SamBridge]

It does create a higher acceleration, but only at the smaller radius. As the radius increases, the acceleration falls off. A higher acceleration with a smaller radius does not increase the 'range'.

Care to try it out? Not that I'm challenging you, I just want to see it happen in the process, it would probably help robomont as well.

Edited May 30, 2013 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

Care to try it out? Not that I'm challenging you, I just want to see it happen in the process, it would probably help robomont as well.

 

 

Care to try it out? Not that I'm challenging you, I just want to see in the process, it would probably help robomont as well.

Try what out? Look at the equation you yourself provided (the corrected version). It clearly shows that as r increases, F decreases by the square.

 

First of all, let me say I had the wrong number for the orbit of Mercury, it should be 4.6 million km.

 

Also, I had the wrong figure for the size of a 1 solar mass BH. It's only 10 km. (that's what happens when you try to rely on memory instead of looking it up)

 

So the equation is F = G * m1m2/ r²

 

So let us set m1 = to 1 solar mass = 2 * 10³⁰ kg.

 

Earth is m2 = 6 * 10²⁴ kg

 

G = 6.6 * 10^-10 km³/kg/s²

 

So for our 1 solar BH, at the event horizon F = 6.6 * 10^-10 * (2 * 10³⁰ *( 6 * 10²⁴ )) / 10² = 79.2 * 10⁴² km/s²

 

For our 1 solar BH at the distance of Earth (1.5 * 10⁸ km) we get

F = 6.6* 10^-10 * (2 * 10³⁰ (6 * 10²⁴ ) )/ 2.25 * 10¹⁶ = 35.2 * 10²⁸ km/s².

 

This is the acceleration at Earths orbit. 10²⁸ is one hell of a lot smaller than 10⁴²

 

^{It's also the same acceleration we would get if the Sun were not a Black Hole, but simply a normal star of 1 solar mass.}

 

 

^{Edited to get my math right.}

Edited May 30, 2013 by ACG52

[robomont]

thankyou for that explanation.very understandable.

will let my mind rest on this to let it soke in.

ill be back.

[SamBridge]

There we go, problem solved.