Eever saw that site ?? or just read anything about that theory ?? ... Please reply..

http://www.darkvisitor.com/



<Quoted from the site>:

current perturbations of Pluto's orbit seem to indicate that a black holes will pass by the sun in late 2007, more distant that Saturn�s orbit. It has 2.2 solar masses. Its gravity will slightly modify earth�s orbit, producing a 378-day year and eccentricity of 0.0836. A rapid-onset ice age will begin in 2008 and accelerate as earth�s albedo increases. By 2025, Washington DC will be buried under 100 feet of ice. Before that, all of the world�s ports will be useless. (Ocean levels drop, as ice is stored on land.) --- All this and more in Dark Visitor.

<End of quotation>

Eever saw that site ?? or just read anything about that theory ?? ... Please reply..

http://www.darkvisitor.com/



<Quoted from the site>:

current perturbations of Pluto's orbit seem to indicate that a black holes will pass by the sun in late 2007, more distant that Saturn�s orbit. It has 2.2 solar masses. Its gravity will slightly modify earth�s orbit, producing a 378-day year and eccentricity of 0.0836. A rapid-onset ice age will begin in 2008 and accelerate as earth�s albedo increases. By 2025, Washington DC will be buried under 100 feet of ice. Before that, all of the world�s ports will be useless. (Ocean levels drop, as ice is stored on land.) --- All this and more in Dark Visitor.

<End of quotation>

Yes, I've heard it before. It appears to be completely bogus since the ONLY people to support the idea are the ones that produced the book.

Think about it - there's a large number of astronomers and astrophysicists and not a one of them seem to be concerned about this particular "doomsday" so rapidly bearing down on us. ;)

We're much more likely to top ourselves before Nature does it, given what history shows us.

Eever saw that site ?? or just read anything about that theory ?? ... Please reply..

http://www.darkvisitor.com/



<Quoted from the site>:

current perturbations of Pluto's orbit seem to indicate that a black holes will pass by the sun in late 2007, more distant that Saturn�s orbit. It has 2.2 solar masses. Its gravity will slightly modify earth�s orbit, producing a 378-day year and eccentricity of 0.0836. A rapid-onset ice age will begin in 2008 and accelerate as earth�s albedo increases. By 2025, Washington DC will be buried under 100 feet of ice. Before that, all of the world�s ports will be useless. (Ocean levels drop, as ice is stored on land.) --- All this and more in Dark Visitor.

<End of quotation>

if a black hole was that close we would be able to see it already.(by see i mean see an absence of stars where it is)

Kenworth, you're kidding, right? At 2.2 solar masses, the event horizon of a black hole is 6.5 kilometers in diameter. Even the gravitational lensing wouldn't be easy to find.

havent had time to do it properly but i get closer to 3000km

Kenworth, you're kidding, right? At 2.2 solar masses, the event horizon of a black hole is 6.5 kilometers in diameter. Even the gravitational lensing wouldn't be easy to find.You are correct in this, but there is another reason why even much larger Black Holes approaching the solar system can not be detected by gravitational lensing:

The typical Black Hole gravitational lens changes the intensity of the star light, observed on Earth of a more distant star when the BH passes near the star/Earth line. To notice this intensity change, one must monitor the star for some period of time (and have reason to believe that the variation is not part of the star's natural variation/ oscillation) The ideal "signature" of a gravitational lens in operation is an intensity vs time curve that is "bell shaped" with flat constant intensity "wings." That is, there must be a time record of the intensity to observe gravitational lens effects. If the BH is relatively near the solar system , say 100,000AU away, and moving with typical velocities in space, then the angular motion relative to the star/Earth line is too fast to observe the required intensity vs time curve as it very briefly passes near the line between the Earth and the Star. Strange, but true, it is much easier to detect a distant BH by gravitational lens effect than a "near-by" one.

There is considerable "salesmanship" at the web site, but also a list of all the physics hidden in the book. The physics hidden in Dark Visitor is correct and a painless way to learn while reading the scary story. Book is designed to "reach out"/ recruit students to hard science careers who would never knowingly open a "science book." The legal profession, Wall Street etc. are claiming some of the US's best brains. I admit there is more financial reward there, but science can provide a good life financially with much more intellectual satisfaction than these non-productive, exploitive, fields do. ("Exploitive" as they mainly take money from one set of people and transfer it to another.)

Dark Visitor is built on the following two basics facts:
(1) Pluto, which is smaller than the moon, was not the cause of the disturbance of Neptune, which lead to the discover of Pluto as was thought until Pluto's moon Charon was discovered and it became possible to know Pluto's mass. It is possible that the perturbation of Neptune was casued by the first of a pair of gravitationally bound black holes passing not too far outside of the solar system and the second member of the pair will arrive soon. It is strange, and hard to explain, why the orbit plain of Pluto is so tilted wrt the ecliptic of the other planets - a passing BH could have been the cause.
(2)Most stars are binary pairs (conserves angular momentum of the gas cloud they formed from without excessive spin in a single star.). Large (typically 100 times greater than the sun) stars formed early in the history of the universe. They all had short lives (much less than a billion years) and left, at least, one black hole pair behind when they died. (Not quite established as fact, but becoming more so, is the idea that the collapse of a mass to form a BH is not the smooth steady event that is easier to model mathematically. Instead, it is more like the supernova event, which hurls great parts of the mass collapsing into space. That is, it is at least plausible that even isolated massive stars of the early universe formed several BHs as they died.)

As to the abundance of paired BHs (and a very good recent reference about them) see:
www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0504034

Where on page 6 left column near bottom you can read:
"One of the interesting implications of these scenarios is the possible existence of a halo population of binary black holes [116]. With a full halo of such objects, there could be a huge number of {black hole} binaries inside 50 kpc"

Because there were so many generations of large stars in the early universe and most formed paired BHs, if not dozens of black holes, it is true that today there are more paired black holes than all the currently radiating stars! While it is highly improbable that a "Dark Visitor" will even slightly change the Earth's orbit in late 2007, IT WILL HAPPEN SOME DAY. Again, the physics in Dark Visitor is correct and possibly this "cosmic disaster" is more probable that a direct hit on Earth by asteroid of life extinguishing size.

Kenworth, 2.95 kilometers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius) is the most common figure given for a black hole of Sol mass.

The relationship between the mass and the diameter of the event horizon is absolutely linear.

The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, with a proportionality constant involving the gravitational constant and the speed of light. The formula for the Schwarzschild radius can be found by setting the escape velocity to the speed of light, and is

rs = 2Gm/c²
where

rs is the Schwarzschild radius

G is the gravitational constant, that is 6.67 × 10-11 N m2 / kg2;

m is the mass of the gravitating object; and

c² is the speed of light squared, that is (299,792,458 m/s)² = 8.98755 × 10^16 m²/s².

The proportionality constant, 2G / c2, can be approximated as 1.48 × 10-27 m / kg.

The mass of the sun is about 1.99 * 10^30 kilograms. I think you used the mass of the sun in grams to get the figure that you did.

haha,its been so long since i did calcs that i forgot that the answers arent in the units i want them to autmatically,i just assumed the answer was in km.so its actually about 6km

Billy T: Small black holes may well be immortal. Not everyone believed in Hawking radiation anyway, and Hawking recanted that theory. Of course the process of collapse into a singularity is chaotic. It would have to be accompanied by massive random energy releases as matter collided with matter at relativistic speeds. I just go with the idea that in any collision, there are more little pieces than big pieces. Perhaps collapsing matter blows off little pieces that are still in the process of collapsing, so supernovas may shed small singularities. What do you think?

Billy T: Small black holes may well be immortal. Not everyone believed in Hawking radiation anyway, and Hawking recanted that theory.About a week before an important conference (well after the "deadline" for submitting papers) last year, Hawking asked to speak at it (as some are more equal than others, he was of course only asked what time would you like?)
Very few who heard him could agree on exactly on what he "changed his mind" but it was not the Hawking radiation. I think those qualified to follow the math still believe that is real. What he "recanted" had to do with the recovery of the entropy that a Black Hole has swallowed before it ceases to exist in the terminal, very explosive, burst of Hawking Radiation, as I understand it.
Of course the process of collapse into a singularity is chaotic. It would have to be accompanied by massive random energy releases as matter collided with matter at relativistic speeds. I just go with the idea that in any collision, there are more little pieces than big pieces. Perhaps collapsing matter blows off little pieces that are still in the process of collapsing, so supernovas may shed small singularities. What do you think?Glad you agree.

I cannot do general relativity calculations; once I was able to follow some simple ones, but not even that anymore. Those related to Black Hole formation are some of the most complex. Years past between the first solutions of the spherical simple BH results until the non-spherical solution with angular momentum was found. I do not much regret my lack of ability in this area, as I am sure it is all only interesting math and has little to do with how BHs actually form. Let me tell you why:

Skip to the bold text below now, if you do not want the proof of what is relatively obvious anyway.
I do know a little about fusion, but have forgotten many details. Three things are important to recognize:

(1)The rate of fusion, FR, (at constant temperature) is proportional to the square of the density, &rho;. That is, the number of collision/ second that can overcome the very strong Coulomb (positive electric charges of the nuclei repel very strongly at short range) forces that exist when the separation is small enough for the very short range nuclear force to begin to attract the colliding particles is proportion to &rho;^2.

(2)Only a very small fraction of the thermal distribution of the colliding particles, those in the extreme energy range of the Maxwellian distribution, have sufficient energy, E, even in a "head-on" collision to over come the Coulomb forces and "fuse." This fraction is essentially an exponential function of temperature, T, or proportional to exp{-(E/T)}. (I am not worrying about the units.)

(3)The pressure, P, in a star becoming a BH is essentially a function of the distance, r, from the center of mass. Although relativistic effects may be important (at very high temperatures, a few of the electrons in the "Maxwellian tail" of the distribution have their velocity limited by c.) the ideal gas law is not an unreasonable approximation for the pressure / temperature relationship. Thus P(&rho; ,T) = &rho; * T = P(r).

From (1) & (2), the fusion rate, FR ~ &rho;^2 * exp{-(E/T)} where ~ means "is proportional to"

Using (3) to replace &rho; just above:
FR ~ [{P(r)}/T]^2 * exp{-(E/T)} but we can consider some particular "r" and or even better the set of all locations in pressure equilibrium, at pressure P, which means essentially at the same distance from the center of mass and just consider how the fusion rate depends upon temperature:

In words: the fusion rate is the product of a term decreasing quadraticly in T with a term that is an exponentially increasing function of T. Well, exponentials beat the hell out of quadratic terms, so even if there are some approximations here the following is true:

The fusion rate is a strong increasing function of temperature and small parts of the star with the same pressure as other small parts of the star that happen to have the temperature a little bit higher will have higher fusion rates, despite their lower density.
THIS IS AN INSTABILITY.
Just like the rich getting richer, the hotter parts of the star get hotter as fusion energy is released and their fusion goes to near completion while some other part of the star at essentially the same radius as other part are only slightly along with that stage of fusion.

Thus, it seems to me that the math models, which assume that the star makes iron and collapses smoothly spherically to a point, are nonsense. I think it more likely when one is speaking of a typical star that formed in the early universe (typically 100 or 200 times more massive than the sun) that several separated sub regions burn all their fuel and begin to collapse to a smaller black hole than the uniform spherical collapse model predicts. Unfortunately, this is much to complex to permit a detailed analysis by those who can do such things. I expect that the truth is that small part of these massive early universe stars, which probably are at least near the center of mass form black holes of a few stellar masses and as the do locally collapse to a point NOT EXACTLY AT THE CENTER OF MASS, the remainder of the star (90%?) is blasted into several pieces which may have stronger gravitational mutual interactions than with the first black hole formed. That is I think these big first generation stars give birth to approximately 10 to 20 black holes in relatively rapid sequence (in a tens of thousands of years).

The current mathematical approach to theoretically investigate how BHs form from big dying stars reminds me of the drunk looking for his car keys, which he heard drop in the dark parking lot. He looks under a lamppost half a block away, because he is not able to search in the dark. General relativity theorists are not able to compute the real collapse of a big star, so they do what they can! (At least the drunk was drunk, I do not know their excuse.)