Possibility of star formation around black holes

You have your imagination. Well that certainly trumps reality.
 
You have your imagination. Well that certainly trumps reality.

Imagination cant "trump" reality. It is a part of it.

now if i said something is not possible or delegated the best way of approaching something I could be wrong.
 
I have my imagination to reference, besides that there is a person in regular physics who doesn't believe in black holes.

Imagination is more Important then knowledge:
Albert Einstein.

Of course what Albert meant was that Imagination, Innovation and speculation, all go in to supporting the scientific discipline as a whole. Let's also throw in a dash of serendipity.

The big difference between you and I Beaconator, both being lay people, is that with my Imagination, [and I have plenty of it] I recognise it as my Imagination...I recognise that that Imagination is curtailed somewhat by my own lack of proper education, experience and practical application.
I recognise that with so many giants of cosmology, past and present, that that same Imagination has probably surfaced elsewhere, been discussed, and either discarded as unlikely or Impossible.
I dont have delusions of grandeur in anticipation of rewriting 21st century cosmology.

but perhaps you will find a more formidable opponent in regular physics. I see disbelief beats imagination on the scales of this site.

Disbelief does not come into it. Observable data supports a certain model. Continued observations supporting that model, further reinforces it. Speculative scenarios [which you have plenty of] remain just that....speculation.
Some speculation is just plain Impossible [as outside the laws of physics and GR] other speculation is just beyond our current capabilities to implement or observe at this time.





If you and him got together against me maybe you would have a chance to change my mind, but I highly doubt it. I would love the chance to go against someone who understands relativistic physics and chemistry simultaneously but I see none with a like mind of imagination or a simulator to challenge my beliefs.

:shrug:

What you need to do is recognise that until observational or experimental evidence can support an Idea, it remains speculation.
That's the name of the game.
 
Imagination is curtailed somewhat by my own lack of proper education.
yes... exactly.
this is part of why i do not mind you at all.

also,
this applies to logic.
which consist of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.
the more of these three elements, the more the logic.
which for some reason the low level minded throw this word around without having any of it.
 
Imagination is more Important then knowledge:
Albert Einstein.

Of course what Albert meant was that Imagination, Innovation and speculation, all go in to supporting the scientific discipline as a whole. Let's also throw in a dash of serendipity.

The big difference between you and I Beaconator, both being lay people, is that with my Imagination, [and I have plenty of it] I recognise it as my Imagination...I recognise that that Imagination is curtailed somewhat by my own lack of proper education, experience and practical application.
I recognise that with so many giants of cosmology, past and present, that that same Imagination has probably surfaced elsewhere, been discussed, and either discarded as unlikely or Impossible.
I dont have delusions of grandeur in anticipation of rewriting 21st century cosmology.
So far the speculations I have had have not been far off known information. If my imagination is able to keep up with today's information it is because I have limited my imagination by many aspects of physics. Thus If I say something incorrect I will amend it to a specific law. So far I have written many single sentences that provide pictures closer to what is going on than a chapter in a book is able to portray and received many compliments on more enlightening sentances.

The only thing that remains an aspect of my imagination is that I see a black hole as a reflection of its respective galaxy. By that I mean it is more of a recycling center for decaying material than an object that devours. Still further I believe everything represented outside the event horizon can be reflected with antimatter inside. Thus the conservation of energy can be rendered by both quasars creating new stars and particles on both sides and matters disappearance rendering annihilation on both sides.

This leads me to believe equilibrium of all elements renders the birth of creation instead of a chemical dirty bomb.
 
This leads me to believe equilibrium of all elements renders the birth of creation instead of a chemical dirty bomb.

What you need to do is recognise that until observational or experimental evidence can support an Idea, any idea, it remains speculation.
That's the name of the game
 
I recognize that there is observational evidence such as quasars in close galaxy groups producing more stars than common galaxies. I also recognize all elements contained within the same "box" as an experiment worth rendering and exploring in today's day in time. I just don't have the financing or the proper setting to undergo such an outrageous idea. I also understand only 90 or so elements occur naturally. I also recognize the root of human and animal consciousness sustains all elements to an insignificant statistical degree. Further I recognize the equilibrium of all elements as a "make or break" to finding the highest order capable of human hands.
 
I recognize that there is observational evidence such as quasars in close galaxy groups producing more stars than common galaxies.

Some galaxies are very active...simple as that. Some SMBH's are very active...simple as that.
Older type galaxies generally have quieter stellar formation epochs, and less voracious SMBH's.
AGN or QUASARS are generally seen near the edge of our Observable Universe.
What does that tell you?



I also recognize all elements contained within the same "box" as an experiment worth rendering and exploring in today's day in time. I just don't have the financing or the proper setting to undergo such an outrageous idea. I also understand only 90 or so elements occur naturally. I also recognize the root of human and animal consciousness sustains all elements to an insignificant statistical degree. Further I recognize the equilibrium of all elements as a "make or break" to finding the highest order capable of human hands.


:shrug: I don't.
 
Some galaxies are very active...simple as that. Some SMBH's are very active...simple as that.
Older type galaxies generally have quieter stellar formation epochs, and less voracious SMBH's.
AGN or QUASARS are generally seen near the edge of our Observable Universe.
What does that tell you?






:shrug: I don't.


1) That tells me black and white holes are associated with every Event Horizion such as elfs in the troposphere, sprites in the mesosphere, blue jets in the stratosphere, and lightning in the troposphere. Cosmic microwave background radiation is associated with the edge of our observable universe by way of gamma ray bursts which help NASA cameras detect lightning. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78487

2) Gamma rays or light rays are always near the Edge of Time or place a little further past the event horizon.

3) The universe giving or The universe giving back lies between any solid object and the edge of time.

A) The edge of time is where time begins and stops.

B) The universe giving is a white hole distributing fusion around the universe.

C) The universe giving back are the black holes distributing fission and fusion across the universe.

EVERYTHING before or after those horizons is an equilibrium of all elements.
 
1) That tells me black and white holes are associated with every Event Horizion such as elfs in the troposphere, sprites in the mesosphere, blue jets in the stratosphere, and lightning in the troposphere. Cosmic microwave background radiation is associated with the edge of our observable universe by way of gamma ray bursts which help NASA cameras detect lightning. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78487

2) Gamma rays or light rays are always near the Edge of Time or place a little further past the event horizon.

3) The universe giving or The universe giving back lies between any solid object and the edge of time.

A) The edge of time is where time begins and stops.

B) The universe giving is a white hole distributing fusion around the universe.

C) The universe giving back are the black holes distributing fission and fusion across the universe.

EVERYTHING before or after those horizons is an equilibrium of all elements.

What a disgraceful waste of bandwidth.

The answer simply was "the galaxies described as AGN's and/or QUASARS are younger.
Simply because we are looking back further into time. :rolleyes:


And WH's, as much as I like to speculate on them, are just hypotheticals at this time.
 
What a disgraceful waste of bandwidth.

The answer simply was "the galaxies described as AGN's and/or QUASARS are younger.
Simply because we are looking back further into time. :rolleyes:


And WH's, as much as I like to speculate on them, are just hypotheticals at this time.

If we are looking back further they should be older...
 
If we are looking back further they should be older...

No, if you look at Alpha Centauri tonight, you are looking at the light that left it 4.3 years ago.
If you look at M31 [Andromeda] tonight, you are looking at the light that left it 2.5 million years ago.
If you look at the most distant AGN, you are looking at the light that left it 13 billion years ago, or just 0.8 BILLION years this side of the BB.
We effectively look into the past, every time we gaze into the Cosmos.
 
No, if you look at Alpha Centauri tonight, you are looking at the light that left it 4.3 years ago.
If you look at M31 [Andromeda] tonight, you are looking at the light that left it 2.5 million years ago.
If you look at the most distant AGN, you are looking at the light that left it 13 billion years ago, or just 0.8 BILLION years this side of the BB.
We effectively look into the past, every time we gaze into the Cosmos.

That is the worst answer ever devised... but how does someone push someone else without a terrible answer?

If there are 40 billion black holes between there and now and time stops at every single one of them then the AGN are happening now! making them younger even though we are seeing further back in time.

You see The further back in time you go the closer you get to now.

I wouldn't mind learning anything about scalar densities right about now.
 
You see The further back in time you go the closer you get to now.

I wouldn't mind learning anything about scalar densities right about now.

:bugeye:

Are you serious???
Think about what you have said. You can't be serious!


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


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629132527.htm


http://astronomycentral.co.uk/most-distant-quasar-discovered/


Again, the further we see when looking into the Cosmos, the further back in time we are looking, and the younger will be the object/s
If you can't see, and don't accept that, then one can only shake one's head in disbelief.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Looking Back in Time

Because light travels at a large but finite speed, it takes time for light to cover large distances. Thus, when we see the light of very distant objects in the universe, we are actually seeing light emitted from them a long time ago: we see them literally as they were in the distant past.

For example, Supernova 1987a occurred in a "nearby" galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud (adjacent figure). Its light was observed on Earth in 1987, but the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is about 190,000 light years. Thus, we normally say that Supernova 1987a occurred in 1987, but it really happened about 190,000 years earlier; only in 1987 did the light of the explosion reach the Earth! If we want to know what the Large Magellanic Cloud looks like "now", we will have to wait 190,000 years.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Yes I'm serious. Anywhere gamma rays exist is time zero, making most forms of light infinitesimally close. Quasars are at time 1. and galaxies go negative after a quasar is statistically close in a triangulated position to ourselves.
 
Back
Top