Possibility of star formation around black holes

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Beaconator, Jan 27, 2014.

  1. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Black holes are considered strong enough to pull light itself in. It should stand to reason light would build up in orbit around black holes before the event horizon. If this is true the accumulation of energy would form a ring or accretion disk which would eventually coalesce into a star.

    I have based this idea off observed stars orbiting and identifying black holes. Also quasars which represent massive amounts of energy circling black holes.

    The giant gas cloud currently heading toward our galactic center could reveal this potential.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No it wouldn't.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Grok'd!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. radon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16
    It will not, unless there is an exit for accumulation of material.
     
  8. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Star formation would be a quick process in the dense area just before the horizon. The failure of which would lead to quasars. This isn't the cycle of star formation in dense nebulae from previously exploded stars. This is the formation of "new" stars from pure light.

    Without this process or a process like this chemicals would never originally form to create stars in other manners.

    If all that existed were energy and black holes, it would be the only way for energy to transform into matter.

    This is a viable answer to the cause of the big bang. The denial of this process negates a black holes ability to absorb light.

    If light exists outside the horizon and can fall in, there exists a possibility of of it orbiting around the edge. Denying this is akin to saying you can stand ten feet from the edge of the Grand Canyon and can jump into it, but you can't stand on the edge.

    What happens on that edge is controversial.
     
  9. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Light wants to stop completely at a black hole. Is it far fetched to say the gravity here slows down light enough for it to accumulate? Say 99.9% the speed of light? Then we ask ourselves a simple question answered by Einstein. What happens when an electron gains mass? It gains velocity.

    What happens when light gains mass?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Light can circle a BH at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, and is known as the photon sphere.
    Accretion disks form beyond this point and spiral inwards to the EH......
    Coalescing into a star would not be possible, due to gravity from the BH itself.

    Quasars are galaxies powered by SMBH's, sometimes called AGN [Active Galactic Nucleii]
    Our own SMBH is mainly dormant probably due to the age of the Milky Way.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Gravity does not slow down light.
    Light approaching a BH's EH, will be red shifted further and further along the spectrum, from the PoV of another FoR...
    Photons or particles of light to not gain mass.

    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    BH's do absorb light/photons....Or more correctly, all light approaching a BH will spiral inwards until falling into a BH.
    Light/photons emitted just at the EH, will always be turned back to the EH and get sucked in, except any photons of light that maybe emitted directly radially away from the EH. In that case, the photon would just appear to always hover above the EH, never quite getting sucked in, and never quite getting away.
    This applies to the idealistic Schwarzchild metric...anything else, Kerr, Kerr-Newmann, Reissner-Nordström, may have slight different variations on these measurments/ distances etc....
     
  13. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Excuse me, changes its velocity.

    AGN are the best examples of energy escaping a black hole due to a change in velocity. Quasars are not radiation emitted from a black hole but rather energy around a black hole forced into a vortex. Most of the time they are formed by matter which changes into energy near the photosphere. The redshift you mention is a change in velocity. If matter approaching a black hole can be forced to change into energy and escape, then energy approaching can be transformed into matter and escape.

    In any case it is certainly possible a star orbiting a black hole at extremely high velocities is able to absorb a photon traveling slightly faster.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, nothing changes the speed of light. Space/time expansion though can and do change the frequency of the wave length that we receive.
    And gravitational wells will change the time frequency for someone receiving that light outside...gravitational time dilation no less.





    Nothing escapes a BH....NOTHING!
    Light does not change speed.....
    Matter will not coalesce into stars near a BH.....
    Redshifts/Blueshifts are a change in frequency not speed....
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2014
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Keeping in mind hawking radiation has not yet been observed.
    But even if when it is observed, I don't see it as anything escaping from a BH....

    Virtual particles pop into existence near the EH....
    One particle gets sucked in....
    The other gets away and becomes real.
    The particle sucked into the BH is negative, so in effect detracts from the overall mass of the BH....

    Simple as that.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,552
    Correct. But they can increase their momentum. Which means they increase their frequency, shorten their wave-length. Keep the same speed (c). Which is, of course, not what he was puzzling about.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    NOTE: Some changes just made to my post 11, due to unintentional booboo...
    Where are the bloody pedants when we need them!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,552
    So that's what happened. I was responding that light does not increase its 'mass' as it is a massless particle, but with momentum.
     
  19. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Virtual particles have never been observed.

    Momentum as Wagner stated is not the answer either. Momentum is mass times velocity. But it's very close.

    The "speed" of light is a constant not velocity. Velocity is the "change" in speed and direction of an object. Which would make the velocity of light variable due to only to gravitational forces. The only ways to change the frequency of light is to effect the wavelength or speed. Since speed is constant, only a change in direction can alter the wavelength.

    Therefore the velocity of light is variable, which as Wagner pointed out would alter momentum.
     
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Virtually nothing of what you have said is accurate:
    Light isn't matter. Stars are made of hydrogen (mostly), not light. So that's word salad.
    Light does not slow down. It can change direction, changing velocity, but it can't slow down.
    You wrote that backwards at best.
    No it isn't. It is just a change in wavelength.
    No. Gravitational redshift is due to the combination of time dilation and length contraction.
    It doesn't.
    It doesn't either.

    You're just making this crap up as you go. It bears no resemblance to reality.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    I have a sneaking suspicion this thread may end up in pseudoscience.
     
  22. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Then why is it I barely feel the need to think in order to defend myself from your skewed perspective of illiteracy?
    First off, word salad is something nonsensical, therefore does not require a correction of any kind.

    Stars contain hydrogen. They are observed to be "made" in big gaseous nebulae.

    The title suggests possibilities, which are not always observed actualities.
    From a point of observation an object moving toward us would be considered to be slowing its rate to our position if it decided to take a left turn at its current speed.
    Neither Einstein nor the electron cares about my inability to plagiarize. It just opens the door to your excessive idealism as opposed to ideology.
    Granted there is no change in direction. Frequency is only affected by a change in wavelength when it passes through a different medium.
    Oh please. I may have made some slight mistakes in syntax to shorten widely known information, but the stuff I have generated is undeniable in terms of logic.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Not correct. Frequency of light/photons is determined and governed by cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift.
     

Share This Page