Reason for question is far fetched idea that there may be a black hole of roughly 100 times Earth mass orbiting the sun in the asteroid belt.

Origin of this idea is told at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1519034&postcount=3 (And post 1)

It could surely be detected by a rocket that happened to fly near it or an asteroid that had some suddend change in its orbit, but space is big and this may not have both occurred and been observed.

At end of the post linked above, I suggest why that it is also very unlikely to have been observed by gravational lens effects.

Obvious it can not be seen by any telescope as black holes reflect ZERO sunlight.

The arguments for it existing are three:

(1) There is no good explanation for the existence of the asteroids. If a not well formed planet, incomplete planet trying to form, why are some nearly pure iron? If that iron is explained by the asertroids having once been a normal terestrial type planet, why and how did it come apart? Post 1 of the link gives an answer to why the planet ceased to exist - was mainly replaced by a small, locally-formed, black hole feeding off the planet, eating from the inside out. The planet collapsing / imploding as it core is eaten but as most of the mass becomes part of the black hole some pieces of the planet survive by mutually scattering. (Any large collection of many gravitationally interacting objects will eject some of its members from the group.)

(2) There is no good explaination for the "Pioneer anomaly." It requires about an extra, but unobserved 100 Earth mass in the solar system.

(3) There is no good explaination for the the fact that Mars has not decayed into a nearly circular orbit, but the periodic perturbation by a passing small black hole would keep Mars in an elliptic orbit. It passing massive Jupitor would have little effect upon Jupitor's orbit, especially as it would "lag" and "lead" Jupitor on each pass.

All three of these problems of physics may have one common solution:

A black hole of about 100 Earth masses that "ate" most ot the Planet that was once in the orbit of the asteroids. Some theories of formation of the solar system predict that there should have been a massive (relative to Earth) planet formed in the asteroid belt - Between the very massive Jupitor and the smaller than Earth Mars. (Why Mars smaller when otherwise the terrestrial planet masses increase with distance from the sun - was it "robbed" of some of the mass now in a 100 Earth mass black hole?)

Does anyone well versed in the guidance of rockets sent beyond the asteroid belt (not many have gone that far) know of any strange graviation they experienced? If not, what is the chance that they have been too far from a 100 Earth mass black hole to have been deflected so noticable that this dieviation could not be explained by minor change in performance of their mid course thruster performance?

I admit this is a wild idea that I came up with but I can not shoot it down.* Can you?
----------------------
*In post 2 of the above link I though the idea was well burried, but that was based on my mis-reading of the first fererence I read about the magnitude of the pioneer anomaly.

x-rays

x-raysThey, like optical photons are 100% absorbed. try again.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/01/08/GR2007010800050.gif

Post 4 is nice picture but not related to tiny (100 Earth mass) black hole's physics. It would be continuosly eating some solar wind but the individual particles of the solar wind would not stop expanding away from each other until almost eaten by the tiny black hole. Collision between them (which are required even to produce a visible photon before disappearing inside the event horizon) would be very rare. Definetly not an X-source. Perhaps some solar light could swing around the black hole, just out side of the photosphere (which it self is just out side of the event horizon) and come back to Earth, but if possible that is a very weak and rapidly moving light souce. - Not likely to observable.

It would noticeably perturb the orbits of the other planets.

It would noticeably perturb the orbits of the other planets.
No more than would an invisible planet of 100 earth masses:) I don't know if that would perturb the orbits more than the noticible perturbance mentioned in the OP; or 2nd post.

Billy T; have you calculated the radus of the event horizen of a 100 earth mass black hole; I would think it would be very small.

No more than would an invisible planet of 100 earth masses:) I don't know if that would perturb the orbits more than the noticible perturbance mentioned in the OP; or 2nd post.

Billy T; have you calculated the radus of the event horizen of a 100 earth mass black hole; I would think it would be very small.

It would, I attempted a calculation and arrived at a radius of 8,8722E-01 m

It would noticeably perturb the orbits of the other planets.As I know you are very well informed on these types of things, I bet you are correct.

None the less, can you support this with more detail? For example, if in circular orbit 6.28E8km from sun, how much would Mars at its mean distance (2.28E8km) be moved in a lateral* direction (seen from Earth) as the postulated black hole comes into conjuction with Mars? Would almost all of this movement be almost "undone" as it leaves conjunction alignment? (To make it easier, falsely assume Mars is in a circular orbit also, if that helps.)

What if it were 7.28E8km for the sun? - I.e. consider the two cases where Mars misses the "100 Earth mass" black hole by 4 and 5 hundred million kilometers as Mars overtakes it around the sun. I am assuming that even at 7.28E8km (a miss of Jupiter by only about 5E7 km) that the pertubation of Jupiter would be smaller than that on Mars because of Jupiter's much greater mass than Mars.

It's orbit of course would be perturbed much more by Jupiter than Jupiter's is perturbed by it. What is the long term cummulative effect of this on its orbit? Am I correct in my intuition that Jupiter may have pulled it closer to Jupiter or at least driven in into a less circular orbit than the assumed original planet it "ate"? (So like Neptune and Pluto they do not get near each other as much (semi major axis of the BH now being larger for longer orbit period) What is the likely hood of resonace locking as it moves to wards Jupiter, if it does as my intuition tells me it should? Could it resonace lock with Jupiter to always be far from Mars during the last 100 years (since accurate measurements of Mars's location began)?

I do not expect you to answer all my questions if that takes too much work - one inescapable "idea killing" numerical result with the corresponding accurate observational data will suffice. :bawl: :eek: (Go ahead - murder my beautiful child if you can. Perhaps the orbit of light-weight Ceres is your best murder weapon. It has been observed for many years and must have come much closer than Mars to my black hole. Now I am starting to hate "ugly facts.")

Also in original thread post 3, did I get the mass correct, to order of magnitude, for a small black hole alone to explain the Pioneer Anomaly? Perhaps it is only 10 Earth masses and there is more unknown mass in the solar system accounting for the major part of the Pioneer Anomaly? Would a 10 Earth mass black hole in a 7.28km circular orbit definitiely be known from some observation that have actually been made? (I am sure it could be found at least by spiralling a rocket ship out but that might take a 100 years to search the entire volume near the asteroids out to near Jupiter, if it is true that Jupiter is slowing catch it (until it eats Jupiter in the final phase of the approach).

I would, however, be interested in your "guestimates" about all my questions, but make itr clear whne you are giving analytical results instead of "guestimates"
-------------------------
*I do not know of any radar measurment of Earth/Mars separation, so am assuming that only the lateral (wrt Earth) movement of Mars is measured. How accurately is Mar's lateral movement known. Does Mars always occult the background stars exactly on schedule? How often each year, on average, is the occulting by Mars measured?

BillyT:

I read this and thought of you.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060626_mystery_monday.html

Regards,

Walter

------------

BillyT: I read this and thought of you.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060626_mystery_monday.html Regards, WalterThanks, I do not understand even the four dimension very well with gravity field or accelerations (Special relativity is my limit.) but at least your reference proves I am not alone in thinking there are lots of ways to make small black holes.

As I know you are very well informed on these types of things, I bet you are correct.

None the less, can you support this with more detail?

How about a historical note. Neptune is only about 17 times the mass of the Earth. At its closest, it passes 1,600,000,000 km from Uranus. Yet it perturbed Uranus' orbit enough that not only was its existance predicted, but its location was calculated well enough to lead to its being found. And this was with the observations and methods available in 1930.

Besides that, any sizable body in the asteroid belt would play hell with the Kirkwood gaps.

Such a mass would have several thousand moons orbiting it.

How about a historical note. Neptune is only about 17 times the mass of the Earth. At its closest, it passes 1,600,000,000 km from Uranus. Yet it perturbed Uranus' orbit enough that not only was its existance predicted, but its location was calculated well enough to lead to its being found. And this was with the observations and methods available in 1930.

Besides that, any sizable body in the asteroid belt would play hell with the Kirkwood gaps.Thanks, I have reserved you the seat of honor at the funeral of my idea. Not only are you well informed, you are also clever enough to avoid doing the numerical work. As I am very lazy, I really admire that.

BTW do you (or anyone else) recall who it was that first commented about clever / beautiful ideas being killed by ugly facts?

Such a mass would have several thousand moons orbiting it.an interesting thought, but not likely to be "several thousand" First reason is that by their dynamic interactions many would escape, cutting number down to a hundred or less I would guess despite there being one dominate mass.

Secondly, a mass body can not just "capture a moon" from a passing (not already bound mass). That is impossible in a two body interactions.

I don't know why they insist on saying that. The sun is a third body. And it doesn't work equally on the captor and the captured.

... The sun is a third body. And it doesn't work equally on the captor and the captured.Technically correct, but totally insignificant (in the asteroid belt) as the gradient of gravity falls off as the inverse cube. Also even the very tiny difference in gravity strength that exists there would tend to cancell out during the capture of a moon as that moon body would at times be located where the gravity was minutely stronger and at times where it was minutely weaker.

To effect a capture in any realistic case, you require a near-by third body so the local gravity gradient is not essentially zero.

I think that the force that allowed the Earth to capture the moon was basically the gravity gradient, the tidal force. I'm going to have to make some of my own simulations because I doubt that most, if any, take into account the shifting center of gravity. Treating the two like idealized points is simply wrong.

Is there proof that a black hole is not a region of time dilation in space? An area that experiences time differently than the space that surrounds it.

Is there proof that a black hole is not a region of time dilation in space?
There's not even proof that there is such a thing as a black hole. It's all theory. Time dilation may not be a property of space, but just the experience of objects moving through space.

"How can a 100 earth mass black hole in solar orbit be detected?".

As has already been capably explained en masse; by its enourmous gravitational perterbation upon other bodies in the solar system.

The orbits of the bodies of relatively easy visibility have been historically accurately recorded for many thousands of years. A drunk elephant weighing 100 earth masses floundering about in the solar china shop would have thrown the movement of solar bodies out of whack so much that you, Billy T, would have to buy your astrology ephemeris anew every week at least. I am betting that you rely on your horoscope without such frequent updates.

...A drunk elephant weighing 100 earth masses floundering about in the solar china shop would have thrown the movement of solar bodies out of whack so much that you ... would have to buy your astrology ephemeris anew every week at least. ... No. The 100 Earth mass black hole would have a very regular and predictable orbit (No "floundering about" )

As far as need to weekly correct the epheremis, that is NONSENSE - We do not need to do this for Jupiter's effect on the other planets and it is much more massive. (Too lazy to look up but at least 50,000 Earth masses, I think.)

No. The 100 Earth mass black hole would have a very regular and predictable orbit (No "floundering about" )

As far as need to weekly correct the epheremis, that is NONSENSE - We do not need to do this for Jupiter's effect on the other planets and it is much more massive. (Too lazy to look up but at least 50,000 Earth masses, I think.)

Jupiter is about 300 Earth masses. It's about 1200 times the *volume* of earth, but it's a gas giant, whereas the earth is composed largely of denser materials (iron, for example).

Jupiter is about 300 Earth masses. It's about 1200 times the *volume* of earth, but it's a gas giant, whereas the earth is composed largely of denser materials (iron, for example).Thanks for the information. - I recalled only that it had roughly1% of solar system mass and guessed much to high what that was.


None the less my point remains - his post was NONSENSE , as unfortunately many of them are.

You and I often disagree on how to project the economic future, but neither is irrational. - I enjoy reading your well informed posts - only recently, in another thread, did I realize your knowledge extends deeply in math as well.

None the less my point remains - his post was NONSENSE , as unfortunately many of them are

Yes.

I have been thinking about this problem for a while Billy, since you posted it.

Wouldn't we see some high energy gamma rays, or something? I think we would have noticed a source of high energy cosmic rays?

Billy, we couldn't calculate the trajectories for a flyby of Jupiter or Saturn or Neptune if there was an object in the asteroid belt that was a hundred thousand times more massive than the total mass of the asteroid belt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

"The total mass of the Asteroid belt is estimated to be 3.0-3.6×1021 kilograms,[2][3] which is 4% of the Earth's Moon."

The mass of the moon is 0.0123 that of the earth, call it a hundredth, and 4% of this is a twenty fifth, call it a tenth for luck and the mass of the asteroid belt is in the order of a thousandth that of the earth.

Somebody check my arithmetic, but Billy, I think NASA might have noticed. Sorry.

Billy, we couldn't calculate the trajectories for a flyby of Jupiter or Saturn or Neptune if there was an object in the asteroid belt that was a hundred thousand times more massive than the total mass of the asteroid belt. ....Certainly true. I even mentioned that a rocket fly by could detect it easily (if it was in that sector - This before learning Janus58 that all planets would show its effect - he cleverly pointed out that with only17 Earth mass the disturbance lead to the discovery on Neptune.)

I have been thinking about this problem for a while Billy, since you posted it.
Wouldn't we see some high energy gamma rays, or something? I think we would have noticed a source of high energy cosmic rays?I too thought about the detectability of 2.2 SOLAR MASS, black hole hundreds of AU from the sun several years ago (when writting my book with that aproaching the solar system.) I invented the phrase "micro quasar" to describe the faint light that I expected would eventually be formed as the very rarafied solar wind was converged on it. Until that 2.2 sunmass was much closer, I concluded that there would not even be a "micro quasar" as the ions of the solar wind would not get to high enough density while converging in the gravity field of the BH before vanishing inside its EH. Thus, in my book the approach is first noticed by an astronomer who has been making a life-long careful study of Pluto's orbit. (Because it orbit is inclined, Pluto can best be observed, for many years still, from the Southern Hemisphere and that is where he lives. When all other explainations of his observations failed, he worked out the most likely mass and trajectory, which if correct, will miss Earth by 12 AU but the gravitational impulse will cause a permanent, rapid onset, ice age with every one stuck in Northern Hempisphere dying. He is now so busy looking for gravitational lens effect along his crude trajectory (to try to refine it) thatr he asked his friend a historian to write the book - this puts into style and language anyone can understand (My target reader would never knowing open a science book.)
More on my book, why I wrote it, and how to read for free at web site under my name.

How can there be Black Holes of variable mass sizes. The center of it is a singularity; how can one singularity be more massive than another? And after being consumed into the singularity, doesn't visiting mass dissappear?

And after being consumed into the singularity, doesn't visiting mass dissappear?

No, because the radius of the black hole goes like twice it's mass. (or half its mass, I can't remember).

No, because the radius of the black hole goes like twice it's mass. (or half its mass, I can't remember).
Huh ???

And after being consumed into the singularity, doesn't visiting mass dissappear?

No, black holes conserve mass/energy, charge, angular momentum, and probably a few other properties of their consituents.

I think you're going to be inventing new physics if you say that a singularity can conserve anything. Have we changed the difinition of a singularity??

No, black holes conserve mass/energy, charge, angular momentum, and probably a few other properties of their consituents.true, but charge never can be much as they would tend to "self neutralize" by selectively absobing the charge they are lacking for the near by vacuum pair production. (One of the two simple minded POVs of how Hawkings radiation works.)

Thanks for the information. - I recalled only that it had roughly1% of solar system mass and guessed much to high what that was.


None the less my point remains - his post was NONSENSE , as unfortunately many of them are.

You and I often disagree on how to project the economic future, but neither is irrational. - I enjoy reading your well informed posts - only recently, in another thread, did I realize your knowledge extends deeply in math as well.

Billy T; those having far less than your alledged level of education would have to admit that the observed solar system movements through many thousands of years only make sense if there were not an additional previously unseen 100 earth mass elephant also floundering about anywhere in the solar system.

Unless you are willing to admit that you are fighting me, make a post proving your claim that many of my posts are NONSENSE.

I think the productive portion of this thread is over.