Stars Are Being Born in the Depths of a Black Hole

From NASA

Stars Are Being Born in the Depths of a Black Hole

Image of Phoenix Cluster.

Located about 5.8 billion light years from Earth in the Phoenix Constellation, astronomers have confirmed the first example of a galaxy cluster where large numbers of stars are being born at its core.

Galaxy clusters are the largest structures in the cosmos that are held together by gravity, consisting of hundreds or thousands of galaxies embedded in hot gas, as well as invisible dark matter. The largest supermassive black holes known are in galaxies at the centers of these clusters.

For decades, astronomers have looked for galaxy clusters containing rich nurseries of stars in their central galaxies. Instead, they found powerful, giant black holes pumping out energy through jets of high-energy particles and keeping the gas too warm to form many stars.

Now, scientists have compelling evidence for a galaxy cluster where stars are forming at a furious rate, apparently linked to a less effective black hole in its center. In this unique cluster, the jets from the central black hole instead appear to be aiding in the formation of stars. Researchers used new data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope, and the NSF’s Karl Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) to build on previous observations of this cluster.

Image Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO/G.Schellenberger et al.; Optical:SDSS

Last Updated: Nov. 20, 2019

Editor: Yvette Smith

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “Stars Are Being Born in the Depths of a Black Hole

  1. “…they found powerful, giant black holes pumping out energy through jets of high-energy particles…”

    I thought the characteristic of a black hole was that nothing escaped its clutches. I’m obviously misinformed.

    • It is somewhat more complicated than that : Remember the world is always what it is and science is always just a limited model of it.

      I cant remember the details BUT two thoughts emerge from years ago when I tried to understand all this

      (1) as matter is sucked into a black hole it emits huge amounts of radiation.
      (2) some kind of quantum tunnelling allows matter to escape from a black hole. (cf Hawking Radiation)

      The last book I re-read on physics made some points that I now half understand: Black holes arise out of linear analysis of the world. If the mass is concentrated into a smaller and smaller space in the end you get a(theoretical) point with mass, but no dimension, and therefore infinite gravitational fields. This leads to divide by infinity or divide by zero type maths problems. And this is why they invented ‘string’ theory to ensure that nothing was a point. The smallest thing possible had some length ..

      Black hole radiation is right where the classical world of linear space of infinite precision meets the quantum world of subatomic dimensions that cannot be divided.

      Which is of course why they are so fascinating. Two radically different incompatible ways of looking at the world work on different scales extremely well, but where they meet…

        • Sheri, I agree that much of the hypothesising emanating from cosmologists is fiction – but this field does generate taxpayer-funded work for the multitudes of graduates churned out by our universities who would otherwise be unemployable.

          I am one of those neanderthals who, despite being fascinated by astronomy, cannot accept the idea in the big bang theory that the entire universe started out as a subatomic point. I also struggle to believe in the concept of a neutron star where a teaspoonful of material weighs more than our Sun. That is a gargantuan compression of what are already incredibly tiny particles.

          • Neutron stars are not that dense. An entire neutron star with a radius of some ten kilometers has “only” about 1.4 times the sun’s mass.

      • Hawking radiation is from the event horizon, or “edge” of the black hole, not from inside the event horizon or black hole proper.

        Jets are the same, they do not emerge from within the black hole, but from the streams of matter flowing towards the black hole and “focused” by the intense magnetic fields and the spin. Matter circulating a black hole in the accretion disc is focused towards the “poles” of the black hole much as water is depressed in a whirlpool as it speeds up and heads down a drain.

      • Matter heats up as it approaches the black hole, both from compression and from constant collisions.
        It’s this super hot matter that emits the radiation that is seen. The magnetic field of the black hole concentrates the escaping radiation at the poles.

      • According to the Einstein’s general theory of relativity huge mass of a collapsed galaxy would:
        a) immensely distort the nearby space into a funnel (see link) so that to an outside observer the area appears grossly reduced, misleading observer to assume it must end up in singularity.
        b) Any electromagnetic radiation mainly X and Gamma rays (temperatures are far too high to generate much light in the visible regions of electromagnetic spectrum. Due to the huge mass involved outgoing radiation would not only bend but form into a spiral trajectory so that it appears as if it is coming out of the last ‘loop’ of the spiral which is then mislabelled as the ‘event horizon’. 🙂

      • One thing I don’t think is mentioned is that it takes an incredibly long time for the energy produced at the core of the sun by fusion to make it to the surface of the sun — on the order of 100,000 years to several million years.

        Which means a star the size of our sun has perhaps a million years of energy stored up in its interior.

        Now can you imagine what would happen if you were able to completely rip apart a star the size of the sun in the course of a year?

        That’s right — the energy released from the disintegrating sun would be about a million times as much over that year as was normally produced.

        Reference: https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11354.html

        • So the solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle of a nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun’s activity is produced by the energy produced at the core of the sun by fusion that takes between 100,000 years to several million years to reach the surface?

          • The solar magnetic activity is thought to be produced by the solar dynamo which is closer to the surface. I believe there are a couple of theories about this and the zone at which this takes place.

    • I always understood that light was not able to escape, hence they are “black”. But just goes to show how much “scientists” DON’T know!

    • Very simplistic way to start:
      The mass of the object is such that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, ergo no light from that object can escape ergo it appears to be a black region of nothing, ergo it is called a hole.
      Any mass that is accelerated towards that object approaches the speed of light and releases vast amounts of energy in doing so, but prior to reaching the event horizon. It appears the energy is coming from the black object but it is really coming from the accelerated masses being drawn into the object by the extreme gravity.

      (User name misspelled?) SUNMOD

    • This could actually be black hole where galaxies are going to die but in our limited window of observation and discovery somebody has decided to interpret the information incorrectly. This is a hypothesis born out of 20 years of listening to bad climate scientists observing the end of planet earth. These post modernist scientists seem prone to making big mistakes.

    • David
      To address your question:
      No – stars would not form inside a black hole.
      But galaxy clusters have central black holes surrounded by a cloud of dust.
      Dust clouds are nurseries for new stars, not the black holes themselves. The black holes influence the rate of star formation in their vicinity.

      In many large galaxy clusters, the central black holes emit jets of particles that have such high energy that star formation locally is inhibited – conditions become too violent.

      But this article is about a subset of galaxy clusters where for some reason the central black holes emit weaker, lower energy particle jets. It turns out that dust clouds hosed by these more gentle black hole jets, generate new stars at a high rate.

      The message is – don’t overcook your galaxy center dust cloud if you want to grow stars. Kind of common sense galactic gardening advice.

      • You’re right, it is.
        Typical journalist dumbing down of a scientific research finding beyond recognition.
        Always go straight to the abstract, ignore the journalist’s opinionated blather.

  2. The title is misleading. The stars were not being born 5.8 billion years ago in the depths of a black hole, but in a galaxy cluster around it.

  3. They just making it up as they are going along.
    Black holes exist only in our understanding not in the reality of universe which is made of everlasting cycles of transfers of mass to energy and vice versa. The universe is a “mass-energy bidirectional time-space mobius loop”, with no start and no end. 🙂

      • Hi MK
        Particle accelerators are converting kinetic energy into mass; e.g. in the LHC when two protons collide their kinetic energy is converted into hundreds of short lived particles of extra mass, but there is always a number of electrons, protons, positrons, some anti-particles, etc. In conclusion it can be said that the two initial protons can create multiple protons and electrons and antiparticles, with this additional matter being made from the kinetic energy of the two accelerated protons.
        In case of localised parts of universe, kinetic energy of collapsing galaxy would super-heat matter during ‘crunch’ with the atoms’ nuclei breaking down. Collisions of protons would produce more mass with some of the particles and anti-particles annihilating generating strong gamma bursts.
        Therefore, there no transition time when there is only energy or only mass, i.e. there is no zero crossing point. Important to note the space and time would also oscillate according to total mass available at any time. Process is a four dimensional entity with mass-energy-time-space coordinates.

      • Of course its a two way equation. Evidence provided long ago.

        But Vukcevic’s assertion that he has a mathematical proof of an endless closed, cycling universe is nonsense. He assumes in the setup what he sets out to show.

        • Post normal science as created and developed to a perfection by climate scientists.
          JO’B, you obviously refer to my CU link posted again just few days ago. Did you ever wonder what the CU refers to? An explanation was given here more than seven years ago
          Also some six comments further along (replace ‘talktalk.net’ with ‘co.uk’
          🙂
          Have a nice day.

      • https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production

        The mass m of a single electron is equivalent to 0.51 million electron volts (MeV) of energy E as calculated from the equation formulated by Albert Einstein, E = mc2, in which c is a constant equal to the velocity of light. To produce two electrons, therefore, the photon energy must be at least 1.02 MeV. Photon energy in excess of this amount, when pair production occurs, is converted into motion of the electron-positron pair.

    • Exactly my thoughts when I am high, but you put it to words nicely!
      Although Mobius in this case is 3D or maybe 4D is time is included. Space appear as endless to observer in one point of space and time, but actually is time-space-vortex/loop giving impression of being endless. If there really is difference.
      Speed (of light), mass (gravity) and time are interacting with each other. If time slows down when gravity increases and speed increases, does this mean at the absolute center of black hole time stops -like happens also in absolute speed of light, but which can never be reached. Does this then mean that in the hart to black hole, time itself is transformed to mass and energy and vice versa. Are time, mass and energy interchangeable?
      Crazy talk I know. And big bang theory is BS.

      • MarkW
        “…So when astronomers claim to have found black holes, they are just lying?”
        You mean like seeing without seeing… a sort of Zen thing?
        Cheers
        Mike

    • Black holes aren’t hypothetical. They have been observed, thanks to the radiation surrounding them. Wish I could post the picture from April:

      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

      Abstract

      When surrounded by a transparent emission region, black holes are expected to reveal a dark shadow caused by gravitational light bending and photon capture at the event horizon. To image and study this phenomenon, we have assembled the Event Horizon Telescope, a global very long baseline interferometry array observing at a wavelength of 1.3 mm. This allows us to reconstruct event-horizon-scale images of the supermassive black hole candidate in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87. We have resolved the central compact radio source as an asymmetric bright emission ring with a diameter of 42 ± 3 μas, which is circular and encompasses a central depression in brightness with a flux ratio gsim10:1. The emission ring is recovered using different calibration and imaging schemes, with its diameter and width remaining stable over four different observations carried out in different days. Overall, the observed image is consistent with expectations for the shadow of a Kerr black hole as predicted by general relativity. The asymmetry in brightness in the ring can be explained in terms of relativistic beaming of the emission from a plasma rotating close to the speed of light around a black hole. We compare our images to an extensive library of ray-traced general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of black holes and derive a central mass of M = (6.5 ± 0.7) × 109 M ⊙. Our radio-wave observations thus provide powerful evidence for the presence of supermassive black holes in centers of galaxies and as the central engines of active galactic nuclei. They also present a new tool to explore gravity in its most extreme limit and on a mass scale that was so far not accessible.

      Here is a nearby merging galaxy with three of them:

      https://scitechdaily.com/three-supermassive-black-holes-discovered-at-the-core-of-one-galaxy/

      • Yes they do exist. My wife is studying Scots Gaelic with a physicist tangentially involved with the imaging project. He is very interesting on the subject. I own up to my lack of knowledge about black holes but it is just fascinating.

      • John Tillman,

        You said: “Black holes aren’t hypothetical. They have been observed, thanks to the radiation surrounding them.”

        There are a lot of *claims* that we have evidence of black holes and in April of this year, we now have a claim that we have imaged one.

        There are a lot of mathematical contradictions in the physics of black holes. Our observations differ from the theory so much so, that we keep inventing new types of black holes. For many of the claims, I can find alternate explanations – or at least scientific challenges to the claims. Regarding the imaged black hole, one scientist, Dr. Pierre Robitaille, an expert in magnetic resonance imaging, is highly critical of the methods used and claims made. The techniques used in medical MRI are the same techniques used to “image the black hole” with the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT). Robitaille is controversial because he has challenged several generally accepted mainstream scientific theories, which I won’t detail here. I’m not endorsing Robitaille, because I don’t know enough to say whether or not he is correct – but his analysis of various subjects I have found to be compelling. If you are interested to know his particular criticism about the claims that a black hole has been imaged, you can watch these 2 videos.

        Introduction on the subject: https://youtu.be/kI14fpM3ouU

        Specific scientific/technical criticism about the Event Horizon Telescope and the techniques used: https://youtu.be/Iz8RRN8rY00

        If Robitaille is correct, then this big announcement that a black hole has been imaged is just more of the same kind of junk science we see in Cli-Sci.

        As for the radiation observed around what is called a black hole, this is more readily explained by what happens with plasma electric discharge phenomena, which is observed and studied in the laboratory.

        • “Plasma electric discharge phenomena” do not explain radiation observed around black holes.

          The crackpot lunacy of EU explains nothing, since it bears no relation whatsoever to the actual universe.

          • John Tillman,

            If you want to educate yourself on the subject, you can read Anthony Peratt’s book:

            Physics of the Plasma Universe

            https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/1461478189

            Peratt has a Ph.D. in Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering, has worked for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, been associated with the Max Planck Institute and currently works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

            Plasma physics is based upon observations in the laboratory that are measurable and repeatable. All of the emissions that are attributed to “black holes” are produced routinely in plasma labs. We also see these emissions in nature, for example, in lightning. All of the “strange galactic structures” (such as “Fermi Bubbles”) that cause cosmologists to invent new physics – not verified by observation – are routinely observed in the plasma lab.

            What “bears no relation whatsoever to the actual universe” are black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, and dark energy. This is the “crack filler” that cosmologists need to fill in the gaps when their observations disagree with their increasingly bizarre theories. You keep insisting that black holes have been observed. Just consult that infinite source of wisdom, Wikipedia, to see how there is no real observation of black holes.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence

            Per wiki – it is all about indirect observation – how objects orbiting a region of space behave. Since gravity is the only tool in the cosmologist’s toolbox, to make the math work, it is required to have super dense mass – hence the imagined black hole. I already explained that the electrostatic force is 1×10^39 times greater than gravity and showed a paper that demonstrates the electrostatic force explains galactic arm rotation without the invention of 19x the baryonic matter that we observe. Of course, that is just a theory – as are black holes. But the electrostatic force is something we observe and measure – not fraught with lots of contradictions and inventing new physics.

            Beyond “indirect observation,” there is the claimed imaging of a black hole. Dr. Robataille shot that down. Another case of using instruments beyond their design capabilities and using methods that ignore the basics of science and engineering. Then there is the claimed detection of gravitational waves. I already addressed this – so I assert it is another false claim.

            Depending upon the source, some claim that “energetic jets” emanate from black holes (despite the fact that nothing can escape them in theory). Others claim that matter near a black hole is flung away, and somehow this flung material stays organized over 250 million light-years away in a near-perfect vacuum. Plasma physics perfectly explains this behavior and it is electrical in nature – not something that comes about from gravity, or collisions or momentum.

            99% of the known universe is in the plasma state. It is just bizarre that cosmologists largely ignore plasma – and very few “leaders” in astrophysics have an understanding of plasma physics. Our understanding of the universe will continue to suffer until minds open up to alternative theories that are grounded in verifiable physics.

  4. Can someone help by explaining how to tell if a star nursery is in operation? Can a slice in time of a few years of observations reveal useful dynamics of a process taking orders of magnitude more time? Sorry, I am quite uneducated about this, but curious. Geoff S

        • Geoff, just off the cuff, but guessing their emission spectra indicate that they are very large (O,B, or A class), so cannot be older than some relatively small age (otherwise, they would have already gone supernova or become white-dwarfs).

  5. When it gets close to when Congress has to “approve” funding for Astronomers/Astronomy, ….. all sorts of astronomical discoveries are reported in the news media.

    Its called PJE.

  6. Science fiction, but as long as fiction gets grants and people worship science, it will be called “science”.

  7. Please change the headline. It is simply wrong. Stars are NOT “being born in black holes”. The attached NASA writeup in no way suggests that.

  8. Plasma Cosmology, based on observation and laboratory experiments, answers these phenomena much better than the standard model.

  9. ” embedded in hot gas, as well as invisible dark matter. The largest supermassive black holes ”

    Dark Matter, black holes. Stuff you can’t see, touch, or feel.

    If they said demons and angels, you would say tosh. You can’t see, touch, or feel demons and angels.

    So, how do black holes, dark, matter, and dark energy, differ from demons and angels?

    I assert they don’t. I say we cut off their funding.

      • John, phenomena have been observed which have been interpreted as a black hole. The phenomena can also be interpreted as a plasmoid (Plasma Cosmology). Unlike black holes, plasmoids are common artifacts of plasma experiments in the lab. Plasma behavior has also been shown to scale up. So which is the more plausible interpretation?

          • MarkW,

            The electrostatic force is 1×10^39 times greater than the force of gravity.

            Our current model of cosmology is entirely gravity-based. However, what is observed cannot be explained by gravity. The arms of galaxies rotate at the same speed as the galactic core. This should not be the case based upon gravity. The galactic arms should rotate much slower than the core. Mainstream science responded to this contradiction not by looking for other forces to explain the observation, but by inventing “dark matter.” For gravity to explain the rotation, there must be 19 times more dark matter than baryonic matter (the matter we actually observe). In similar ways, black holes and dark energy were invented to explain the failings of a gravity centric cosmology – where observations and theory diverged.

            Dr. Donald Scott, in his paper “Birkeland Currents and Dark Matter,” presents a model of Birkeland currents that explain and match quite well with galactic arm rotation. Quoting from the abstract:

            “The resulting model exhibits an obvious correspondence with the results of the Marklund convection process in plasma filaments. Most importantly, it shows that observed stellar velocity profiles in galaxies are now accurately predicted without invocations of Dark Matter, WIMPs, or MACHOs.”

            You can read the paper here: http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

            The Plasma Universe (PU) and Electric Universe (EU) Theories, while in their infancy, and the latter lacks some discipline and suffers from over-enthusiastic participants, offers some good alternative lines of thought about how the universe works. Much of the information coming in from space probes over the past 2 decades align better with EU/PU theory than standard cosmology.

            Our view of space has changed a lot in recent years. We now know that all of the stars and galaxies in the universe are connected by galactic filaments (the galactic web). The EU explains them as Birkeland currents – self-organizing (through the Lorenz force) plasma – flows of charged particles that connect and feed all of the stars. Stars form along these Birkeland current filaments in what are called “Z-pinches” in plasma physics. These effects are demonstrated in physics labs and scale to astronomical dimensions (as Jack Okie said).

            Picture/article regarding cosmic web: https://www.livescience.com/cosmic-web-hydrogen-filament-photo.html

            (Not meant to be the best article on the subject – just something I found quickly.)

            The NASA article also mentions that the black holes “pump out jets of high-energy particles.” You can find in other reports, that these jets can go on for over 300 million light-years and their width does not vary with distance. Can you imagine a laser that doesn’t diverge over a 300 million light-year distance? The gravity-centric model struggles to explain these “jets.” The model only knows gravity and momentum. Somehow the black hole spins up charged particles, focuses them and shoots them 300 million light-years and they don’t spread out in the near-perfect vacuum of space. In the EU model, these are not “jets,” but plasma discharge Birkeland currents. They are a part of a circuit – they are a flow of high energy charged particles/ions. As stated prior, Birkeland currents “self-organize” – just like lightning on Earth, the attractive and repulsive forces of the ions keep the width of the lightning relatively constant. We also see this in the plasma lab.

            Another interesting aspect of Birkeland currents is that they naturally form in twisted pairs – just like we do with some electrical communication lines (think POTS and CAT 5). Nature seems to find this to be an efficient way of organizing. Furthermore, this twisted pair (double helix) form is seen in DNA, and we are starting to suspect electrical origins to this arrangement. In many ways, the structures in space look very much like biological structures – and to me, it is fascinating that a common natural order appears to exist.

            I’m personally very disappointed in the state of cosmology science. I think it suffers from the exact same problems we see in Cli-Sci. It is made worse by the sheer number of articles written in publications with the word “science” in the name – written by people who know little about science.

      • John, phenomena have been observed which have been interpreted as black holes. These phenomena can also be explained as plasmoids (Plasma Cosmology). Unlike black holes, plasmoids can be created in the lab. Plasma behavior has also been demonstrated to scale up. So which is the more plausible explanation?

        There is an unfortunate readiness these days to treat theoretical objects, such as black holes and gravity waves, as real. Alternate hypotheses are not considered; observations falsifying the theory are ignored; reproducibility is abandoned in the rush to issue press releases. Consider this: On October 3, 2003, the galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for “nearby” galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319’s opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114.

        Other than a convenient hole in NGC 7319’s opaque clouds, no other explanation based on the standard model has been forthcoming. On the other hand intrinsic red shift, with a theoretical basis in Plasma Cosmology, handily accounts for this observation. Plasma Cosmology, and the related Electric Universe theory, also account for the the observed frequency of binary stars (approximately 80%), quasars, pulsars, and the jets coming from the cores of galaxies.

        • Jack,

          You mentioned the detection of gravitational waves. Just a few years ago, the headlines were filled with the claim that we have successfully detected gravitational waves. Within 48 hours of powering up LIGO, the team had a “successful detection.” The mass media, including all of the publications with “science” in the name, pump the narrative. As it turns out, they have infected the minds of the readers, as they do on most topics of science.

          How many reading this here, have read the headlines, but also have read this criticism of the LIGO claims:

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

          The criticism came from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark.

          LIGO attempts to detect a ripple in gravity by shooting a laser down a 2.5 mile-long tunnel and measure a change in length that is less than 1/1000th the diameter of a proton. Actually 2 orthogonal tunnels are used to make comparisons.

          The challenge is to extract a signal from the noise. In order to extract the signal from the noise, one has to know what the signal is! This means the LIGO team has to solve Einstein’s GR equations exactly for 2 black holes merging. So equations have to be solved for something that has never been measured or observed or proven to exist. Then that has to be subtracted out of an ocean of noise. So the LIGO team *guessed* the details of 2 black holes merging and solved for that. But they failed to understand how to subtract out the noise. All of their results were flawed at a basic signal analysis level. And even if they solve the signal analysis noise problem, any “detection” they get will be aligned to a guess about what 2 black holes merging should be like according to their imagination.

          I understand the challenge – but there should be no “A” for effort and creativity. This is garbage science that can never escape the fatal catch-22 flaw.

          I’m convinced the Danish team’s analysis is sound and we have not detected a gravitational wave, despite the claims.

          Oh, and the Nobel prize was awarded to the LIGO team.

          • Who at the Bohr Institute doubts the reality of LIGO’s 17 August 2017 detection of the collision of two neutron stars?

            Your link is outdated, to say the least, since it refers only to the earliest of eleven or more gravitational wave detections.

          • John Tillman,

            You said: “Who at the Bohr Institute doubts the reality of LIGO’s 17 August 2017 detection of the collision of two neutron stars? Your link is outdated, to say the least, since it refers only to the earliest of eleven or more gravitational wave detections.”

            The same article I posted the link to addresses the claimed 17 August 2017 “detection”:

            “There is other evidence to suggest that at least one of the later detections came from a gravitational wave. On 17 August 2017, the orbiting Fermi telescope saw a burst of electromagnetic radiation at the same time as the LIGO and Virgo detectors picked up a signal. Analysis of all the evidence suggests that both signals came from the brutal collision of two neutron stars.

            The double whammy makes LIGO’s detection seem unequivocal. Even here, though, the Danish group is dissenting. They point out that the collaboration initially registered the event as a false alarm because it coincided with what’s known as a “glitch”. The detectors are plagued by these short, inexplicable bursts of noise, sometimes several every hour. They seem to be something to do with the hardware with which the interferometers are built, the suspension wires and seismic isolation devices. Cornish says that LIGO analysts eventually succeeded in removing the glitch and revealing the signal, but Jackson and his collaborators are again unconvinced by the methods used, and the fact there is no way to check them.”

            I think you miss the fundamental flaw with the instrument. To extract the signal from the noise requires the scientists to know what the signal is. We have not actually measured a single black hole and we have certainly not measured the 2 specific black holes that allegedly collided. So there is no way to calculate what the signal should be. So even if a signal can ever be extracted from the massive amount of noise that instrument experiences, there is no way to know what the source of the signal is. All we have is a guess about the signal.

            This is bad science. It is being packaged and sold to the public as something it is not. It cannot honestly be said that LIGO has detected a gravitational wave.

            The concept of a neutron star is just a theory. Free neutrons are unstable and decay in less than 15 minutes to a proton, electron, and antineutrino. Yet somehow the incredibly weak force of gravity can overcome relatively strong nuclear forces, convert the matter to neutrons, which magically don’t decay but instead form a super-dense mass. The theory of neutron stars and black holes come about because the current model of cosmology requires gravity to be the causation of all phenomena, but our observations contradict this model.

          • Neutron stars have been repeatedly observed.

            They are a fact.

            The link is still out of date. The Danish objections have been shown baseless by two studies:

            https://www.quantamagazine.org/studies-rescue-ligos-gravitational-wave-signal-from-the-noise-20181213/

            https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/two-independent-analyses-confirm-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

            If the staff at the Bohr still refuse to accept observations of gravitational waves and EM radiation at the same time, then no amount of actual science can convince them.

          • PS: Neutron stars are not purely theoretical, but have actually been observed repeatedly.

            Looking at the two neutron stars the collision of which sent out gravitational waves has produced further discoveries:

            https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/e-fio102119.php

            First identification of a heavy element born from neutron star collision

            Newly created strontium, an element used in fireworks, detected in space for the first time following observations with ESO telescope

          • Jim,

            Thanks!

            I’m glad you find my comments worthwhile.

            I wrote an article on LIGO’s gravitational wave detections for the Farmers’ Almanac, so had to brush up on kilonovas.

          • John Tillman,

            I appreciate you sending links that both support and go against your view. The last link shows that as of May 2019, the Bohr Institute analysis still shows no signal received above the noise. The last two sentences of the conclusion sum it up well:

            “In this sense, we remain convinced that data must be analyzed and a best common signal determined without a priori biases and preconceptions before theoretical models are invoked. It is a truism that, if gravitational waves are all you look for, gravitational waves are all you will ever find.”

            Watching from the sidelines, it is not possible to know for sure. But based upon my 3 decades of designing and using high precision instruments for engineering applications, I can give you my assessment. The LIGO instruments require many, many more orders of magnitude sensitivity and precision than any piece of laboratory equipment I have ever used. In fact, if it worked as advertised, LIGO would be the most sensitive and precise instrument ever developed by mankind by a long shot. However, it appears that the testing and characterization of LIGO are many, many orders of magnitude less than required for your average piece of bench equipment.

            Any engineer who has ever used or developed a piece of equipment to work in the real world and do so reliably and repeatedly will see the problem with this.

            Within 48 hours of turning the device on, the operators were claiming to have received a bona fide signal from a black hole merger. I would have expected many years of characterization for noise before even looking for a signal. To put it in perspective, consider the measurement of the speed of light. Even with the latest methods of measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, the best efforts still left a range of uncertainty of 5-15 ppb (parts per billion). It was never really determined whether it was different instrumentation/techniques that led to the different measurements or perhaps there was some variability to the speed of light over time (meaning it isn’t actually constant). The decision was made in 1983 to solve this problem by just defining the meter as a function of whatever the speed of light is measured to be. (That doesn’t sound like a vote of confidence in the belief c is a constant.) If the speed of light changes then so does the length of a meter – so from here forward, we will never know. Now, the uncertainty in the speed of light is over 1 billion times larger than the dimensional change that is supposed to occur from a “gravitational wave.” If green lasers are used, then the gravity caused dimension change is on the order of 3 trillionths of a radian, if phase angle is used to detect it. If transit time of a laser pulse is used then we are trying to measure 3E-27 seconds. Now factor in, limitations of the electronics, like power supply noise, thermal noise, drift, etc., tectonic noise, and any other yet to be understood noise source and you have an engineering nightmare. We should not be discussing signal-to-noise ratio but noise-to-signal ratio.

            Also, remember, the instrument experiences several glitches per hour, so we never really know if we are reading a glitch.

            Beyond the noise issue (which is massive), in order to extract a signal, the signal must be known. As previously stated, it is not known. This is not a secret. The LIGO team guessed at over 250,000 possible signal patterns and from that 37,000 of these signals were selected as the “maximum likelihood” signals (ML Template). A suspected signal is compared to these ML Templates and if there is a close match an event is claimed. Furthermore, for a signal to be detected out of the noise, correlation is looked for between the Hanford and Livingston facilities. Correlation requires algorithms to be run – and the result is never perfect correlation – just a statistical possibility.

            So, I don’t believe the instrument has been engineered to adequately receive such small signals – I don’t think it is possible with our current technology. The signal we are trying to receive is unknown – and there is no way to rule out other signal sources that match one of the 250,000 guessed at patterns. Furthermore, despite your statement, we have never observed a black hole or a neutron star. We have observed things – and we have called them black holes and neutron stars. We have never observed a free neutron that lasted longer than 15 minutes before decaying – and it is only theory that the mass of an entire star can be converted to neutrons and not decay. The basic theory of a black hole tells us that, as distant observers, we can never see anything go beyond the event horizon. From our perspective, time slows down and it would take an infinite amount of time for something to go past the event horizon. Now put two black holes together and explain how they collide.

            Cosmology is full of science fantasy. It is open-loop science, driven by mathematics and adherence to orthodoxy. When observations contradict the theory, the answer from cosmologists is to simply invent new physics to explain what doesn’t comply with what we know. Cosmology is a lost science and I put it up there right next to climate science. It is a perfect place to waste brilliant minds and a lot of hard-earned (and easily taken) taxpayer money.

          • >>
            John Tillman
            November 27, 2019 at 5:30 pm

            Or kilonovae.
            <<

            I was going to mention that they (also) use Latin plurals for some things like nova, but I figured that was too nit-picky.

            Jim

          • >>
            Free neutrons are unstable and decay in less than 15 minutes to a proton, electron, and antineutrino.

            We have never observed a free neutron that lasted longer than 15 minutes before decaying . . . .
            <<

            Well, this is another nit-pick, but your statement isn’t exactly true. In the Quantum world, things decay randomly. The average lifetime of a neutron is nearly 15 minutes, but the half-life of a neutron is slightly more than 10 minutes.

            The function is: half-life = ln(2)*average life-time

            So if you start out with say 100,000 neutrons, then after about 10 minutes, you’ll have about 50,000 neutrons. Then after another 10 minutes you’ll have about 25,000 neutrons and so on. A single free neutron may decay immediately, in 15 minutes, 1 hour, 1 month, 1 year, or even billions of years. We just know that as a group, free neutrons have an average lifetime of about 15 minutes.

            >>
            . . . and it is only theory that the mass of an entire star can be converted to neutrons and not decay.
            <<

            Things in physics tend to move towards minimum energy. If the collapse of an incipient supernova’s iron core creates neutrons and that collapse into neutrons is at a lower energy than individual protons and electrons, then how do neutrons decay into a higher energy state?

            Jim

          • Jim,

            You said: “Well, this is another nit-pick, but your statement isn’t exactly true. In the Quantum world, things decay randomly. The average lifetime of a neutron is nearly 15 minutes, but the half-life of a neutron is slightly more than 10 minutes.”

            I can’t disagree with your point. It’s not a nit-pick – it would have been more correct if I addressed the half-life. I appreciate the correction, however, I don’t think it changes my point.

            You suggested that this conversion to neutrons is a lower state of energy, but I’m not sure how that could be. Free neutrons spontaneously decay. Bound neutrons in unstable nuclei also decay. So the decayed state should be the lower energy state it would seem to me. We don’t know if gravity can force protons and electrons to combine to become neutrons. Where does the antineutrino come from? And we don’t know if these neutrons would be considered stable without protons. So, would they decay? The nuclear physics theory of neutron star creation is complex. I don’t have a deep understanding of it, but I understand that it is an incomplete theory, and not something that we can demonstrate by experiment.

            The most important point I was attempting to make is that we observe a burst of energy and it is attributed to 2 neutron stars colliding. Neutron stars may be real objects – but we don’t know that and we have no observation of them – just observations of bursts of energy.

            In the lab, plasma energy discharges are observed that match the profile of the galactic energy burst events in terms of frequency distribution, time constants, and energy scale. Plasma can act as a capacitor and store tremendous amounts of electrical energy. This energy is stored in what is called “double layers.” Breakdowns can occur in these layers, releasing the energy, exactly as we would see with a capacitor discharge. 99.9% of the universe is made up of matter in the plasma state. Plasma filaments connect all of the stars. Plasma spheres surround all galaxies. More matter exists in these plasmas than exist in the stars. Plasmas are charged particles. Charged particles in motion are currents. These currents create electromagnetic fields that self-organize the charges into Birkeland currents. These currents connect planets to stars, stars to each other and to galaxies and between galaxies. So, it is a reasonable theory that what is being observed with these galactic energy bursts is a plasma discharge. That theory doesn’t require unproven phenomena in physics.

      • John Tillman
        November 24, 2019 at 8:23 am

        Black holes have been observed.
        ————————–

        Black holes have been and are been considered as observation or observed only in the consideration of the guess estimate and rather lousy hypothetical interpretation of the actual observations.

        Even the models do not conclude anyway with black holes as an outcome in the consideration of observations unless experimentally forced to by an extra interpolation from the “wild guess dude factory” there.

        John, you do not really believe or consider seriously the formation of stars within a black hole or it’s condition, do you??

        Do you really think that such super powerful gigantic star formation black holes really do exist, let alone as to be considered properly observed??
        Can you fathom the space time size involved there, John?

        Do you really consider the proposition of such black holes as a proper result of observation, aka observed to be as described, as per the main proposition of the observation there?

        A result or a product, due to stretching, twisting, leading and fitting and tense spinning (quite very misleading at times ) of the data and observation as per the means of simply supporting and upholding given hypothesis or guesses,
        does not necessarily consist as an observation.

        cheers

    • You cannot kick a gravity, or see the principle of least action, but you can know these.
      And they do indeed determine effective events.
      In other words the most important constant in physics is Planck’s action quantum constant.

      That is why the perversity of inventing “dark” STUFF or essence has nothing to do with science, rather only alchemy.

      The EHT, Event Horizon Telescope, people were very careful to say that is what they were measuring, a horizon.
      Hawking showed event horizons are only apparent, not eternal, and chaotic. And that M87* object seems to spew a polar jet beyond any understanding.
      The object at the galaxy center seem quiescent now, other galaxies show how lucky we are.

    • when you make measurements and observe something then you are seeing the effects of something which you might not be able to see directly or know exactly what it is. Sticking your tongue into a light socket that is plugged in will convince just about anyone that there is something called electricity that consists of moving charges that no one has ever seen. when you observe the galactic center carefully with the various telescopes of different wavelengths and do so over several years, one finds there are various stars around an object we cannot see. Applying the calculations we learned about centuries ago that allows us to determine orbital periods based on orbit size and on the mass of the central object we can determine this object weighs about 4 million solar masses. Also, we can determine this object is very small since orbiting stars come very close to where this object is and the orbiting stars don’t crash into anything. Since the central object emits no energy that we can detect, we know it’s not a super giant star. The answer is that our theories predict the notion of a black hole. Whether it is or isn’t is not something we know. However, it meets all the criteria of our theory and it cannot be other things we are already aware of. Evidently, the claims are we now have our first photo of a black hole.

  10. There may another perspective covering this and similar phenomena:
    What if, a “black something” exceeds some limits and explodes (perhaps, from our perspective, veeery slowly) and (re)creates it’s own local universe — that is: there was no Big Bang (as per the Old Testament P.1), but there are, rather perpetual and truly infinite number of Liddle Bangs (re)creating infinite number of local universes… The observed/apparent expansion (red shift) could be explained by “aging light” and that would, in turn, explain the “Microwave Background” as well (we can’t see past some 14 billion light-years not because that’s the edge of the universe, but the edge of our visual observation field).
    And, this I particularly like, would put our Earth not in the center of the universe, but in center of the field we can observe; wouldn’t that make more sense?

    • The observable universe is that region visible to terrestrial observers. Thanks to the constancy of the speed of light, Earth does indeed lie at the center of the universe observable to us.

      Due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, it’s larger than its age. Spacetime inflates faster than the speed of light.

      All presently available evidence supports the hypothesis of a Big Bang, ie a moment in which a singularity began expanding into our universe. There may well have been other such bangs, which still might be going on, but we currently can’t test the hypothesis of a multiverse, of which ours is but one universe, although not for want of trying.

      The CMB Cold Spot has been suugested as evidence for another universe:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot#Parallel_universe

      • If you are justifying accelerated expansion of universe, then you must simply accept, that Earth is in the middle of Universe.
        I have hard times to accept that it is true.
        Only this way you can explain that background IR radiation in Universe is same in all directions, and amount of redshift vs. distance is same too in all directions.
        Aging light theory is much better fit for this. I agree with jaKo.

        • Why must I accept the proposition that Earth lies at the center of the universe? Cosmic inflation guarantees that the universe has no center.

          • Didn’t Blaise Pascal say, “Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere”?

          • Yes, he did write that.

            The observable universe has a circumference. The whole universe might not. Science can’t yet say with any high degree of confidence whether the universe is infinite or not.

  11. As some mention plasma physics, check the Trisops plasma device . Plasma means fusion, energy generation and rocket propulsion. In other words, unlike the Big Bang, Dark Stuff and Essence, there is immediate economic application for plasma physics.
    Very nice how Trisops showed the solar system formation process. It looks like it can scale both up to cosmic scales and down.
    It is fitting that our machines should mirror the natural machines of nature even if tentatively.

      • Jack Okie,

        I too am intrigued by SAFIRE. The SAFIRE reaction chamber is an amazing piece of engineering. They also appear to have a very sophisticated DOE (design of experiments) methodology. Papers are supposed to be forthcoming detailing their results so far. I’m eager to see if their research stands up to scientific scrutiny and can be repeatably verified. (However, I wouldn’t be surprised if they experienced difficulty in peer review due to the fact that they are rocking the boat of cosmology.) The team is making some pretty bold claims, such as observing elemental transmutation and anomalous energy output. The new elements verified by SEM and types of spectroscopy exactly match the elements detected in the “galactic web” of plasma connecting the stars and galaxies. One theory proposed by EU (if not PU) theory, is that elemental transmutation takes place in the corona of stars – not the core (or maybe in addition to the core). I like that what is seen in a plasma lab scales to galactic dimensions – and the latest information coming back from space probes matches what is seen in the plasma lab. But we have to wait to see if the work stands up to scrutiny. There are some aspects of EU theory that will probably not hold up to scrutiny – and the fringe elements of EU will certainly be used to tar the entire line of thinking and research.

        • Nothing in the EU delusion has any basis in actual scientific observation. Nucleosynthesis takes place in stellar cores.

          • It’s not necessary to recreate the stellar cores on earth in order to observe nucleosynthesis of carbon to iron. Nor do astrophysicists need to make their own sudpernovae in the lab to see elements from silicon to nickel being explosively produced. Same now goes for the formerly hypothesized manufacture of r-process elements, such as gold, in neutron star collisions, as observed since 2017.

            Please cite the papers in which the supposed discoveries you allege have been actually been reported, so that genuine scientists can have a good laugh at them.

            Thanks!

            There is no experimental or observational support for any of the crackpot assertions of “electric universe” kooks.

            The standard model of course, being real science instead of (not even) pseudoscience, is always subject to improvement or rejection, if found false. But so far the model has been confirmed and its problems are being attacked via the scientific method, unlike the “EU” fantasy, totally free of any valid evidence.

            Reluctant as I am to label anyone a “denier”, denying the fact of gravitation, such as observed collisions between celestial bodies, is denial of reality, with a vengeance.

          • John Tillman,

            I never said or suggested that gravity doesn’t exist or doesn’t play a significant role in physics. Your claim that I deny “the fact of gravitation” is not an honest interpretation of what I have said. When someone pulls out the “denier” label, I see it as someone running out of thoughtful things to say. You haven’t actually offered any substantive technical or scientific challenges to anything I have said. You seem to just be a fan of popular science types of news articles and you like to cheerlead for their headlines. I provided a link to a paper that shows how a straight-forward application of basic electrical definitions and one of Maxwell’s divergence equations provide an extension of the Bessel function model of force-free, field-aligned currents (FAC). Did you read it? Do you have any criticisms of the mathematics or assumptions used by the author?

            http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

            For over 85 years, scientists have been searching for dark matter to explain galactic velocity profiles. Because gravity is the only force assumed to be capable of organizing and driving stellar motion, it requires that we discover 19x more matter than we actually observe in order to make that math work. But we know other forces exist, like the electrostatic force – and we don’t have to invent anything or discover unknown matter to apply it. By inserting a galaxy’s currently estimated charge density profile into the Birkeland current Bessel function model, we get a near match between expected and actual stellar velocity profiles.

            https://imgur.com/wSsXAP3

            In another post, I referred you to Anthony Peratt’s textbook (Physics of the Plasma Universe). In the early 1980s, Peratt used a supercomputer simulation of 2 Birkeland currents to show how they naturally form the spiral arm galaxy we observe. The simulation did not seed or guide the end result toward a rotating spiral arm. This was the simulation’s natural response to the Birkeland currents over cosmological time. You can get a summary here:

            https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/

            And get the peer-reviewed paper here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4316625

            The theoretical physics about plasmas is well established and the laboratory observations validate the theory. Plasmas form very distinctive shapes with strong boundaries (layers). Tremendous amounts of energy can be stored in these layers. I mentioned the recent data from the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft as they left the heliosphere. The standard model predicted a gradual decrease in the solar wind, and a “bow-shock-wave” near the transition. The EU/PU theory predicted sharp boundaries as double-layer structures would be encountered. In addition, energetically neutral atoms would be found as electrons returned to the outer cathode layer of the heliosphere.

            Voyager 1: https://www.wired.com/2013/06/voyager-unexpected-region/

            Quotes: <>

            <>

            <>

            Voyager 2: https://phys.org/news/2019-11-voyager-interstellar-space-scientists-plasma.html

            Quotes: <>

            Perhaps if Astrophysicists would consult with Plasma Physicists they would not be so mystified by what they observe and their models could better fit observations and predict behavior. The actual observations validate the sharp boundaries of plasma layers predicted by plasma cosmology.

            Nebula M29 gives a textbook example of how stars form at z-pinches in plasma Birkeland currents. Most plasma is in dark-mode and therefore not evident through the visible spectrum. M29 is in glow-mode and reveals the same structures seen in plasma physics labs.

            https://imgur.com/vNLWQzf

            Z-pinch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

            Z-pinches are so powerful that they are one method used to attempt to create fusion. The Z Machine – Can We Make A Star? – BBC: https://youtu.be/eaopaLJk3-Y

            The Z-Pinch and Making Miniature Astrophysical Jets in the Laboratory:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87xgH1FXXX0

            Most of the energy bursts observed in space are good matches to plasma discharges seen in the laboratory. We don’t actually observe physical collisions that correspond to these bursts in space. So, we don’t know what is causing them, but it is scientifically irresponsible to claim collisions are the certain cause and electrical discharges are “crackpot assertions.”

            As I stated previously, much of the new data we have obtained from space probes over the past decade or two, contradict the standard model and lend support to the significant role plasma and electrical phenomena play in cosmology. The choice to learn about this or reject it is yours.

          • This is a repost – the quotation format I used in the previous version caused the omission of the quoted material. I apologize for the repeat.

            John Tillman,

            I never said or suggested that gravity doesn’t exist or doesn’t play a significant role in physics. Your claim that I deny “the fact of gravitation” is not an honest interpretation of what I have said. When someone pulls out the “denier” label, I see it as someone running out of thoughtful things to say. You haven’t actually offered any substantive technical or scientific challenges to anything I have said. You seem to just be a fan of popular science types of news articles and you like to cheerlead for their headlines. I provided a link to a paper that shows how a straight-forward application of basic electrical definitions and one of Maxwell’s divergence equations provide an extension of the Bessel function model of force-free, field-aligned currents (FAC). Did you read it? Do you have any criticisms of the mathematics or assumptions used by the author?

            http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF

            For over 85 years, scientists have been searching for dark matter to explain galactic velocity profiles. Because gravity is the only force assumed to be capable of organizing and driving stellar motion, it requires that we discover 19x more matter than we actually observe in order to make that math work. But we know other forces exist, like the electrostatic force – and we don’t have to invent anything or discover unknown matter to apply it. By inserting a galaxy’s currently estimated charge density profile into the Birkeland current Bessel function model, we get a near match between expected and actual stellar velocity profiles.

            https://imgur.com/wSsXAP3

            In another post, I referred you to Anthony Peratt’s textbook (Physics of the Plasma Universe). In the early 1980s, Peratt used a supercomputer simulation of 2 Birkeland currents to show how they naturally form the spiral arm galaxy we observe. The simulation did not seed or guide the end result toward a rotating spiral arm. This was the simulation’s natural response to the Birkeland currents over cosmological time. You can get a summary here:

            https://www.plasma-universe.com/galaxy-formation/

            And get the peer-reviewed paper here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4316625

            The theoretical physics about plasmas is well established and the laboratory observations validate the theory. Plasmas form very distinctive shapes with strong boundaries (layers). Tremendous amounts of energy can be stored in these layers. I mentioned the recent data from the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft as they left the heliosphere. The standard model predicted a gradual decrease in the solar wind, and a “bow-shock-wave” near the transition. The EU/PU theory predicted sharp boundaries as double-layer structures would be encountered. In addition, energetically neutral atoms would be found as electrons returned to the outer cathode layer of the heliosphere.

            Voyager 1: https://www.wired.com/2013/06/voyager-unexpected-region/

            Quotes:

            Scientists initially thought that Voyager’s transition into this new realm, where effects from the rest of the galaxy become more pronounced, would be gradual and unexciting. But it’s proven to be far more complicated than anything researchers had imagined, with the spacecraft now encountering a strange region that scientists are struggling to make sense of.

            “The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect,” said physicist Stamatios Krimigis of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who is lead author of one of three new papers on Voyager appearing in Science on June 27. “We essentially have absolutely no reliable roadmap of what to expect at this point.”

            Researchers know that Voyager 1 entered the edge of the solar wind in 2003, when the spacecraft’s instruments indicated that particles around it were moving subsonically, having slowed down after traveling far from the sun. Then, about a year ago, everything got really quiet around the probe. Voyager 1’s instruments indicated at the solar wind suddenly dropped by a factor of 1,000, to the point where it was virtually undetectable. This transition happened extremely fast, taking roughly a few days.

            No one is entirely sure what’s going on.

            Voyager 2: https://phys.org/news/2019-11-voyager-interstellar-space-scientists-plasma.html

            Quotes:

            “In a historical sense, the old idea that the solar wind will just be gradually whittled away as you go further into interstellar space is simply not true,” says Iowa’s Don Gurnett, corresponding author on the study, published in the journal Nature Astronomy. “We show with Voyager 2—and previously with Voyager 1—that there’s a distinct boundary out there. It’s just astonishing how fluids, including plasmas, form boundaries.”

            Perhaps if Astrophysicists would consult with Plasma Physicists they would not be so mystified by what they observe and their models could better fit observations and predict behavior. The actual observations validate the sharp boundaries of plasma layers predicted by plasma cosmology.

            Nebula M29 gives a textbook example of how stars form at z-pinches in plasma Birkeland currents. Most plasma is in dark-mode and therefore not evident through the visible spectrum. M29 is in glow-mode and reveals the same structures seen in plasma physics labs.

            https://imgur.com/vNLWQzf

            Z-pinch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

            Z-pinches are so powerful that they are one method used to attempt to create fusion. The Z Machine – Can We Make A Star? – BBC: https://youtu.be/eaopaLJk3-Y

            The Z-Pinch and Making Miniature Astrophysical Jets in the Laboratory:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87xgH1FXXX0

            Most of the energy bursts observed in space are good matches to plasma discharges seen in the laboratory. We don’t actually observe physical collisions that correspond to these bursts in space. So, we don’t know what is causing these bursts, but it is scientifically irresponsible to claim collisions are the certain cause and electrical discharges are “crackpot assertions.”

            As I stated previously, much of the new data we have obtained from space probes over the past decade or two, contradict the standard model and lend support to the significant role plasma and electrical phenomena play in cosmology. The choice to learn about this or reject it is yours.

  12. The thing that makes sense to what we see is that Black Holes are galaxy regenerators. There is a reason they are a part of every galaxy, they are integral to galaxies and how they function.

  13. “Stars are being born” is something of a misstatement — 5.8 billion light years away was a long time ago.

  14. Conceivably stars are “being born in the depth of a black hole” somewhere, but in that case we certainly can’t ever know about it, being outside the black hole.

    What they mean is that stars are formed near a black hole. This nonsense is the result of hiring “science communicators” who have not the slightest idea about what they are “communicating”.

    • tty
      November 24, 2019 at 10:43 am

      For as long as Hubble misses to capture or detect the signature or the signal of such star formations, then it is all the same, regardless,
      a simple arbitrary decision where that star nursery actually may be, either in or near by,
      depending on how large or gigantic the size of the black hole for sale got to be,
      where most depends not in physics any more but in business as usual of black hole sales… as per means of dealing with an ugly anomaly there without upsetting the
      status quo.

      Certainly we do not know about it, in the consideration of visible light detection.
      In that count Hubble detection still like;
      ‘Sorry dudes, no stars or star formation I can’|see” here, or there, in this particular normal empty dark patch of the deep”

      And, as far as I can tell, that is the main anomaly problemo there.
      Black hole explanation there, only simply a further interpolation to explain away this “ugly” upsetting anomaly.

      The thing that the plants in this field crave for… the black holes.

      cheers

  15. “…they found powerful, giant black holes….”
    then
    “…less effective black hole in its center…”

    So, the scientific progress goes.
    What next,
    more powerful gigantic and non effective black holes (at all),
    or perhaps at some point ending up with super powerful super gigantic black holes that are no any more black holes at all, but never the less still considered as such
    (quiet exotically)… ?!??

    Wow,
    and then there is this too;
    “…thousands of galaxies embedded in hot gas, as well as invisible dark matter…”

    Is this some kind of claim considered as simply based on the hypothesis or the observable condition in regard to the unseen “dark matter”,
    as per the merit of “discovery” or merit of wield guesses?

    In my simpleton understanding,
    the mixing (an effective mixing) and a considerable relation (physical) of “black holes” and/with “dark matter”, in a given space time observation, could consist permissible to a degree only in the proposition of super duper powerful-gigantic non efficient/effective ‘black holes”.
    Oh, well, that is only my simpleton point of view.

    No good at wall, having “dark matter” and ” black holes” involved at the same time and point, in the consideration of an explanation or a hypothetical description of a given observation in the
    same given context… I think.

    cheers

  16. “where large numbers of stars are being born at its core”
    To be correct, I think it should be “WERE being born”.. Remember this was over 5 billion years ago. I know, I know…just a nit. And just remember, everything discussed is theoretical, though based on observations and logic. If more evidence comes about, these theories may change. The whole subject is just fascinating!

  17. There’s also some star formation in an area around the Milky Way’s supermassive black hole. Dust & gas moving slowly toward it along the bar come in offset, and orbits/accumulates in a “ring” that then forms new stars. Multiple star systems formed there then interact w/others, and can throw stars inward (& some also get thrown out) close to the black hole — these are the well-documented stars currently in close orbit around it.

  18. Science simultaneously celebrates the first ever energy waves that suggest black holes may in fact exist as theorized now purports to know, even showing beautiful photos of black holes giving birth to stars. Absolute and utter nonsense!

  19. A tiny point of grammatical clarification: the planets “were” being produced 5.8 billion years ago, not “are” being produced.

    • > >
      . . . the planets “were” being produced 5.8 billion years ago . . . .
      <<

      It’s unlikely they can detect planets 5.8 billion light-years away. I believe they specifically said “stars.”

      Jim

  20. Mods,

    My last post seems to be lost in the ether. If you can’t find it, I’ll redo it. Thanks.

    Jim

  21. I’ll try this again.

    >>
    William Ward
    November 29, 2019 at 1:46 am

    You suggested that this conversion to neutrons is a lower state of energy, but I’m not sure how that could be. Free neutrons spontaneously decay. Bound neutrons in unstable nuclei also decay. So the decayed state should be the lower energy state it would seem to me.
    <<

    Basically it has to do with how nuclei respond to excess numbers of protons or neutrons. If the nucleus lies in the valley of stability, it won’t decay. The further away from the valley a nucleus will tend to be less stable (have lower binding energy) and undergo either electron beta decay or positron beta decay. Too many protons or neutrons will simply cause the excess to drip off–called the drip line. There’s a drip line for excess protons and another for excess neutrons.

    If a nucleus has too many neutrons, the number of nucleons lie inside the neutron drip line, and by undergoing beta decay the nucleus gains stability, it will beta decay–convert a neutron to a proton, emit an electron, and emit an electron anti-neutrino.

    Likewise, If a nucleus has too many protons, the number of nucleons lie inside the proton drip line, and by undergoing beta decay the nucleus gains stability, it will beta decay–convert a proton to a neutron, emit a positron, and emit an electron neutrino.

    >>
    We don’t know if gravity can force protons and electrons to combine to become neutrons.
    <<

    Yes we do. Where do you think the neutrons come from when the Sun converts hydrogen into helium?

    >>
    Where does the antineutrino come from?
    <<

    What anti-neutrino? Lepton number, like baryon number, tends to be conserved in most cases. If a proton and an electron combine to form a neutron, it would emit an electron neutrino–that conserves both baryon number and lepton number. We have detected neutrinos from SN1987A. That would happen if the core of SN1987A collapsed to form neutrons.

    Jim

Comments are closed.