0
   

gamma bursts in space

 
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 08:00 pm
Unfortunetly Ros they do lose kinetic energy, although very slowly. I have read, although surely not the last word, that the rotation period of the earth was once as little as eleven hours. Also on the telescope "Chandra's" web page a couple years ago there was an announcement that they had detected an "Earth" sized object being swallowed by the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Apparently it had lost sufficient "forward" motion to "fall" into the hole.

The speed (orbital) of any planetary object is determined only by the amount of space-time between the center of the two masses in question. This is a very precise but self correcting "mechanism" Smile . If it doesnt have the precise speed required by that orbit it will not orbit at that distance. In the case of Earth this is reputed to be about 16,000 miles per second but I haven't figured it out myself yet.

Comment on the black hole "Death of a galaxy"

Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation THEORY not FACT Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation

Since the cohesiveness of a black hole is dependent upon its own gravity and the rotatation of the galaxy will be conserved eventually the rotational speed at the surface will exceed the acceleration of gravity at the surface. If there is not enough material in the galaxy then black holes will combine but eventually it will "blow up". Actually normally one would expect it to excrete material in the plane of rotation and you would end up with a spiral galaxy again. If the "explosion" was due to the rapid combination of two black holes (collision) one would probably end up with an aberrantly shapped galaxy.

All mechanical devices have a limit to the energies that they can absorb wiithout changing drastically. I regard a black hole as simply a mechanical device that absorbs energy to its capacity and then , for lack of a better term, blows up Exclamation

There is no reason to expect math that may be based on erroneous assumptions has any more relation to observation than my checkbook balance does Sad . GIGO

Idea Or perhaps I am full of horse pucky :wink:

Also using a "black hole" as an energy (or matter) absorber answers some other questions as to the relative densities and temperatures of the Universe.

Best, M.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jun, 2004 08:06 pm
If we build a human colony at the North Pole of Mercury and at the South Pole of Mercury. A gamma ray burst over head kills every one at one colony, but the other is shielded by the diameter of Mercury so everyone survives to replunish the Earth and other colonys.
Mercury has zero tilt on it's axis, so shallow depressions at the poles are always cold. Mercury has negligible atmosphere to carry ionized particals from the scourch half, but the magnetic field might bring enough ions to cause big trouble. Neil
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:11 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
Unfortunetly Ros they do lose kinetic energy, although very slowly. I have read, although surely not the last word, that the rotation period of the earth was once as little as eleven hours.


This is due to tidal interactions. Energy is lost from an object, but not necessarily from the "system". Your original comment related to a Galaxy, which is for all intents and purposes, a closed system. Energy in the form of heat and light escape it, but these are negligible as relates to overall orbital decay within a Galaxy.

akaMechsmith wrote:
Also on the telescope "Chandra's" web page a couple years ago there was an announcement that they had detected an "Earth" sized object being swallowed by the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Apparently it had lost sufficient "forward" motion to "fall" into the hole.


Many objects are in unstable orbits, so it's not a foregone conclusion that the object lost orbital energy.

Black holes redirect energy at or near their event horizons, due to angular components of infalling material, but they never leak anything out of the event horizon; that is impossible.

Best Regards,
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 07:14 pm
Ros, A mechanic must consider all the effects. I should have mentioned tidal effects as a cause of current day length. Embarrassed but I intended to remark on something that could be observed. (Not the first thing that I fixed that didn't work as intended Confused .

Consider Meteorites, Space dust, and even the solar wind. Most of these will act to slow orbital motion. It won't happen tomorrow but eventually all orbits will decay. (if something else doesn't happen first Smile )

I suspect the same "mechanisms" are at work in the Galaxy.

Second point (sorry my quoter refused to quote some time ago)

With sufficient energy applied it will no longer be a black hole.
Whether it blows up or emisses away is of little interest. (Stephen Hawkings has remarked that it is possible for a black hole to emit radiation)

With sufficient energy applied to your autos motor it will no longer be a motor. Whether it blows up or melts first is of little interest. There are ALWAYS some mechanical limits, somewhere.

(Hawkings also comments that although we have not observed a primordal black hole there is fairly general agreement that IF we did it would have to be emitting a lot of gamma and x rays)

Hence my thoughts that in some cases a gamma burst may indicate the birth or death of a galaxy.

Further thoughts (all theory or BS whichever you prefer Smile )

Since it seems entirely possible (probable Question ) that all "anything" in a black hole is reduced to quanta then I would expect a "Galactic"burst to be very brief as opposed to a star source which has a much larger dimension. The speed of light (or gamma rays) precludes an instantaneous burst from a star but it may be possible for a black hole to emiss completely in a matter of seconds.

(Hawkings-A brief History of time Bantam Jun 1990, ppg 112.)

He has also mentioned it (emmisivity of a black hole) in a couple other books. I don't remember ( a common occurrence Sad ) which one he explained the math in

Idea Fun to think about anyways, Best Mech
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2004 06:49 pm
I missed the Nova show so forgive me if I am off topic.
Any chance a class O star going super nova could produce millions of Earth mass black holes instead of one black hole of about 50 solar mass?
According to at least one expert Earth mass black holes would produce proportionally more Hawking radiation than ten solar mass black holes. These mini black holes would shrink in a few million years if not hours, unless they could capture lots of mass. There is little mass between the stars (typically) so these mini black holes would go bang when they reached minimum mass. Unless the gamma was highly focused into a very tight beam it is not nearly as strong as a GRB.
Another theory is "almost as fast as light" space ships produce a very tight beam of gamma radiation which continuously sweeps the galaxy like a jittery search light beam. When the beam briefly sweeps across the gamma telescope we perceive a GRB. Because of the high speed of the craft, there is lots of red shift, so we assume wrongly that the source is extremely powerful, omni directional and billions of light years away, when it might be only thousands of miles from the gamma telescope. Neil
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 07:35:40