Does the process of accreation cause redshift?

[shmengie]

Then how can you possibly say what needs to be added.

Because I'm a crackpot

 

And guesses, based on suggestions from "lightbox" to "samdhatte" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravitational_redshift

[Mordred]

That's probably one of the worse wiki pages I've read. It's clearly under development. The author is extremely hesitant and doesn't have adequate supporting links.

 

Nor any of the mathematics. No where near the quality on this page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

[shmengie]

That's probably one of the worse wiki pages I've read. It's clearly under development. The author is extremely hesitant and doesn't have adequate supporting links.

 

Nor any of the mathematics. No where near the quality on this page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

FWIW, it's not a (or the) "wiki" page... Its the wiki(talk)/discussion associated with the same page of your link. At the top of the "talk" page, to the left of talk tab is a link for the same wiki article.

 

Wiki is a work in progress. It makes sense there's a "talk" section where ppl share ideas not out in the open. I gained some insight reading the talk, behind the article.

 

It's not organized like the article, since it's a "behind the scenes" thing, why would it be...

 

You can go back to ignoring me, now, I'm still a crackpot...

 

I agree with your diagnosis, although you left out the symptom of not having a reasonable grasp of the theory you reject.

 

I don't reject all BB theories. I've been vying for an alternate explanation of redshift, which has concluded an expanding universe. I think I've finally stumbled across a plausible cause.

 

Though fully cracked, I try to reason out why this postulation hasn't been considered.

 

I suspect I've identified an area of cosmology/physics that has not really been under the scientific or theoretical microscope.

 

Most physicists/cosmologists, who contemplate a blackhole have attention drawn into the blackhole with matter. After an exhausting spaghettification of thought, few consider the consequences of matter accumulation, outside the event of horizon. Some get distracted by jets escaping the clutch of gravity at the poles.

Blackholes are something we know little about. Their existence is limited mostly to theoretical understanding.

--

 

My initial postulation included all matter being concentrated into celestial bodies as a cause of shift -- the idea teeters on my balance scales of plausibility. The more consideration I give it, it seems limited to a function of blackhole mass accumulation.

 

Stars expend energy, matter and weight through nuclear fusion, emitting light/weight. Which negates their participation in this postulation, in fact a burning star may have an opposing effect... gerr... If this postulation ever going to get off the ground, I think that aspect needs to be omitted for now.

On the other hand, clouds of gas collapsing into star formation, would exhibit a similar effect on the field of gravity, focusing gravity into a body of mass.

 

New title:

 

Gravity focus, a cause of cosmological redshift

 

Exclusion of burning of stars and (definitely) exploding stars, in the hypothesis seems prudent, leaving mass concentration in blackholes and collapsing clouds (formation of stars, planets, etc).

 

The main thing I need to prove is that the field of gravity increases in all directions as matter concentrates at a focal point. Logically, there's the same amount of mass/gravity in the neighborhood, but it's not focused until it falls or accumulates in a black hole or other focal point not emitting mass or energy.

 

BTW, whatcha think, should I change my handle to "crackpot" so I don't have to remind ya'll.

 

Regards,

-shmengie, err.. crackpot

Edited April 26, 2015 by shmengie

[swansont]

I don't reject all BB theories.

 

Good for you.

 

I've been vying for an alternate explanation of redshift, which has concluded an expanding universe. I think I've finally stumbled across a plausible cause.

 

Though fully cracked, I try to reason out why this postulation hasn't been considered.

Maybe because science runs on models, so that ideas can be tested. Vague ideas aren't science.

[Strange]

Most physicists/cosmologists, who contemplate a blackhole have attention drawn into the blackhole with matter. After an exhausting spaghettification of thought, few consider the consequences of matter accumulation, outside the event of horizon.

 

This sounds the wrong way round. By definition, we can't know what happens to matter inside a black hole. However, the effects of matter accreting outside are very obvious and the subject of much active research.

 

Blackholes are something we know little about. Their existence is limited mostly to theoretical understanding.

 

We know quite a lot about black holes. Although, as with all science, there are many open questions.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Strange

[shmengie]

Maybe because science runs on models, so that ideas can be tested. Vague ideas aren't science.

 

Advancement progresses slowly in the realm of theory, when hypothesis cannot be tested. Theorist must start with abstract or vague postulation, relying on intuition when observational data do not clearly connect.

 

 

We know quite a lot about black holes. Although, as with all science, there are many open questions.

 

We have a lot of theories about black holes. Things we actually "know", is a very short list. I'd find a list of more than one "fact" impressive.

 

We understand concepts of black holes, such understanding lies solely on the rim of theory, not proof.

 

The only fact I know about them: A black hole is a mathematically defined region of spacetime.

 

Please don't fuzz up, my crackpot understanding of science.

[Strange]

Advancement progresses slowly in the realm of theory, when hypothesis cannot be tested.

 

That doesn't make sense. If it can't be tested, it isn't a hypothesis. And it's not clear you know what the word "theory" means.

 

Theorist must start with abstract or vague postulation, relying on intuition when observational data do not clearly connect.

 

That is not really how it works. And even if someone does start with some imaginative speculations, they soon have to turn it into a (mathematical) model in order to make testable predictions.

 

We have a lot of theories about black holes.

 

We have one theory: general relativity, that tells us pretty much everything we know about black holes. There are attempts to connect this to quantum theory, but that is one of the big challenges in current science.

 

Things we actually "know", is a very short list. I'd find a list of more than one "fact" impressive.

 

What is the one "fact" you think we know about black holes?

 

We understand concepts of black holes, such understanding lies solely on the rim of theory, not proof.

 

As theory is the best level of understanding an explanation available in science, you obviously agree we have a solid understanding of the concepts related to black holes. (And there is never "proof" in science.)

 

The only fact I know about them: A black hole is a mathematically defined region of spacetime.

 

Erm, that is not a very useful "fact". That is true of the space you occupy as well as black holes. You should probably learn a little about what science knows of black holes.

[shmengie]

I have a simple question about black holes, I haven't been able to find an answer.

 

Is it possible for a black hole to accrete matter?

 

While reading the blackhole wiki, I noted citation for 40% resting matter is converted to radiation, which blows away fusion @ 0.7%... I read the cited paper. 40-90% of total flux +/- 10% could be 100%, so I'm left wondering... The way I see it, we know very little about black holes.

 

Regards,

 

-Crackpot

[Mordred]

What is matter?

 

What constitutes matter are particles that take up space, these particles are fermions. No two fermionic particles of the same quantum number state can reside in a volume at the same time. (Pauli exclusion principle). This group includes electron, proton neutron etc.)

 

An infinite number of bosons however are excluded, an infinite number of bosons can reside in the same volume.

 

Energy doesn't exist on its own, it is a property of particles.

Energy is transferred from particle to particle via gauge bosons. Photons for the electromagnetic force, gluons for the strong force, w and z bosons for the weak force. Possibly gravitons for gravity.

 

The Higgs boson gives mass to only fundamental particles.

 

Mass is resistance to inertia, that resistance is due to the binding energies of the above forces, the primary source of mass is the strong force.

 

Black holes have mass so must therefore be comprised of particles, (not necessarily fermions).

 

We cannot gather any data past the event horizon, but we can still understand how they work via GR, thermodynamic laws, and particle physics. I can show you a 1000 page article chock full of the metrics involved in the study of black holes (in particular the accretion disk). So what we do know on BH's is more extensive than you realize. Anything beyond the EH is modelled possibilities, we cannot directly test beyond the EH, we can however apply indirect measurements.

 

One test in this paper proposes a test to see if the BH is solid or singular beyond the EH, via indirect measurements of the accretion jets.

 

Black holes can acquire as well as lose mass, mass and energy are equivalent via e=mc^2

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself

(Ps it's never a good idea to state limits of what science understands, when you don't have a comprehensive understanding of a particular field).

 

That amounts to the limit of what you yourself understands not what science understands

Edited April 28, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

Is it possible for a black hole to accrete matter?

 

While reading the blackhole wiki, I noted citation for 40% resting matter is converted to radiation, which blows away fusion @ 0.7%... I read the cited paper. 40-90% of total flux +/- 10% could be 100%, so I'm left wondering... The way I see it, we know very little about black holes.t

 

It is traditional to cite source when referencing articles and papers.

 

I assume you mean this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

And this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306213

 

I am not going to try and understand everything in that paper; it is too long and complex. However, if "up to 40%" of mass is converted to energy, then at least 60% of (rest) mass is accreted. Plus the kinetic energy associated with that mass. Plus some of the radiated energy that the mass is converted to.

 

So your extrapolation from 40% to 100% appears entirely baseless.

 

I am also puzzled by the fact that you reference an extremely detailed paper full of analysis and data and then say "we know very little". I cannot imagine what you mean by the word "know" when we obviously have a huge amount of theoretical and observational data.

[shmengie]

Mordred,

 

Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading. Your are right, I should have a firm grasp of the science before I make such blanket statements... The nature of BH's kinda precludes knowledge to the realm of theory.

 

Strange,

 

I apologize for not including reference, my bad. The paper stated 40-90% of flux may be released as radiation. It didn't go into details of that conclusion... Not the purpose of the paper. Best I could construe the paper focused on quantifying radiation emitted from accretion disk vs radio jets and results of modeling energy conversions via different principles. It included enough terminology I'm not familiar with, I was exhausted after reading.

 

It piqued my interest. I asked myself, "what happens to matter at the event horizon?", a few (maybe 5) years ago. The article you linked (ty again) is the closest to observational evidence I've seen. Back then I concluded at most 50% might enter the event, due to testability constraints, I abandoned that train of thought.

 

If up to 90% exits the event via relativistic jet, there is most likely room for +/- 10% statistical error. I'm inclined to believe that the formation of a black hole may be the only point in time where matter can cross the threshold where mathematics breaks down. If that's true. It explains the energies witnessed from the jets to me. But that's so much conjecture, I feel like Sgt. Sholts; I know nothing.

 

Oh... That postulation would prevent black holes from growing in mass, it doesn't prevent them from merging.

 

All of these (somewhat plausible) possibilities have ramification on the gravometric focus postulation, hence my frustrations revolving around (my) limited knowledge.

 

FWIW, Thank you guys!!! for reading my crackpottery... If I ever mathematically construct a pot, I fear it'll be cracked.

 

Regards,

-crackpot

Edited April 28, 2015 by shmengie