Black hole maximum size.

[duncan]

Hi Bojan,
Now that's what i thought. But i've read somewhere that some theory suggests that they do reach a critical mass (so to speak). But what happens then, do they just implode to nothing, or implode then explode forming perhaps another universe .

[bojan]

I never heard of critical mass for a black hole.
Perhaps you confused this with the critical mass of a star (1.4 solar masses) that will collapse in a black hole if its mass is bigger.
There were also some discussions about what is happening "beyond" the event horizon, but IMO those discussions are pretty meaningless because as something is appraching the black hole, due to a relativistic effects the time for that thing slows down, and stops right at the event horizon, as far as we outside observers are concerned.
The things may be different if we are falling into a black hole.... but we would never be able to tell the story to those who left behind....

[duncan]

That is true for sure. No i'm not confused with solar masses. This may have been from someone who doesn't fall into the acceptable theorist categories.
(polite way of saying crackpot,LOL). I guess it's one of those things whereby just about anything is possible. Well beyond my understanding given that we can't even physically see one of these. When we get to the stage of actually photoing one and see stuff falling in and dissappearing into a visible hole we might understand it all a bit better.
Ps If we live to tell the tale,LOL

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

"The biggest black holes, those with at least 100 million times the mass of the Sun, ate voraciously during the early Universe. Nearly all of them ran out of 'food' billions of years ago and went onto a forced starvation diet. "

The way I read this section of the original linked site was that it isn't that there is an "Upper Limit Law" as such that black holes cannot exceed, but rather that we have simply not been able to "observe" one - yet - that is larger than this size. The 100 million solar mass or so black holes seem to be nothing more than the current record holders at present.

It would seem likely to me that should a galaxy with a large central black hole collide / merge / intersect another galaxy at some future time this could potentially bring even more star food within it's grasp and it should be able to increase it's mass even further. As with all things time will tell - but there's no guarantee that we'll be around to see it.

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

As an aside I would like to add that I am not a professional scientist or academic, I have no affiliation with any scientists or academics, nor am I on the payroll of any Scientific Instutions, Panels, Committees, etc.

Nor do I hold anything against those who are scientists, academics, cosmologists (amateur or professional).
.
.
Politicians - many of them I do dislike intently!

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

I would go one step further, and I would say bluntly that it is not only hard, but quite impossible to contribute to the modern theoretical (and practical science as well) science without competent mathematical skills.
Anything less than that is just expressing interest or small talk during the tea break. Of course, we can enjoy it very much , and we do..
Those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves, and nobody else....

I absolutely agree...
and note for the record..
1. I always see myself as a layman.
2. I mostly failed maths at school (only general maths)
3. My ideas are ideas to be seen it the light of the "tea room chat" (er net chat) but I like that way of putting it.
4. I never take myself seriously.
5. My postings offer ideas but contain very little substance.
6. I welcome help from experts.
7. The more I learn the less I know.
8. My interests are never confused with my money making activities.
9. I see more good in people than bad.
10. I will take a different position to keep a chat going.
11. My personal views never go public.

I think the wonderful thing in these forums is that the conversations are kept so civil and particularly the respect everyone extends to each other.

Ron I don't mean to offend any decent people by pointing out the nasty side of some humans... but see the point you make as valid.


alex

[freespace]

Originally Posted by tailwag

Hmnnnnn quite an interesting way to start a Monday morning. Firstly let me say how wonderful it is to have Steve lend a sense of sanity to the thread, I totally and 100% support his views which I must say in my own defence are exactly what I have been saying all along, however Steve said it far more eloquently. My hat's off to you Steve.

My thanks *blush* Its because I have had good teachers see

As an example of how the "System" is not out to get you, I got this in my email today:

Venue: Slade Lecture Theatre, Ground Floor, School of Physics

Title: Curvature Cosmology

Presenter: David Crawford
Honorary Senior Lecturer, School of Physics, USyd


Abstract:

Curvature Cosmology describes a new cosmological theory that
is an alternative to the current Big-Bang cosmology.
It rests on two hypotheses: curvature-redshift and
curvature-pressure and is fully compatible with
General Relativity and quantum mechanics.

It makes predictions for the temperature of the background
X-ray radiation and the cosmic background radiation that
agree with observations. The model shows that the Hubble
constant is a simple function of the density with good
agreement with current results.

The other major observations analysed within curvature-cosmology
are: the background microwave radiation, type 1a supernovae
(It explains the apparent time dilation of the light curves),
time dilation of quasar variability, the linear size of radio
sources, surface brightness of early type galaxies, clusters of
galaxies and the Lyman alpha forest.

Both galaxies and quasars are shown to have a simple Gaussian
density distribution with no evidence of evolution.
It also is shown that a static model for the radio-source-count
distribution provides a good fit to the observations.

Finally it is shown that the deficiency in the observed rates
of solar neutrinos can be explained with a standard solar model
and that the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 arises from
curvature-redshift in the interplanetary dust.

This theory is a static stable cosmology that obeys the perfect
cosmological principle. In addition it is easily refutable and
does not need dark matter, inflation or other ad hoc premises to
have excellent agreement with observations.

dcrawfrd@bigpond.net.au
http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com

See, cosmology is well and truely alive. Here is a scientist presenting an alternative theory, some one I can turn up on Wednesday and talk to, who is not going to lose his job because he is going against the grain of Big Bang theory.

Note how much work his theory has done. It predicts things. Not just one thing, and not just what current theory can not explain. It explains what we see and understand well, AND it explains what we see and don't understand well. That is the hallmark of a sound theory. Note how it acknowledges itself is easily refuted, and introduces no exotic particles or conditions.

I doubt any one here can turn up to that lecture, and I doubt I can either: I have lost half a tooth, and I need to see a dentist otherwise I keep whistling when I talk

For those interested, I can try and see if I can nab a PDF off him of his work, and maybe the slides too.

Now off to the dentist *shudder*

Cheers,
steve

[freespace]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I dont know Steve but given the effort I had to fit what was designed for a 10 inch maybe a 12inch reflector to a 6 inch reflector I say anything is possible but I would be more inclined to seek out a specific unit that you could simply swap... there must be units out there that one could swap over without the drama adapting something that was not a simple swap. But Mill provided me with what I saw as a bargain so I had a go.

Ah, cool, well in that case I will just see if Skywatcher sells one I can just swap on. I am not terribly good with large tools.

My curse is no math but a keen interst in science... it means one is working from a very difficult position, as you appreciate.

It is similar to my color blindness and taking a good astro photo.

That is why I appreciate you and others so much for helping me.

Its not a curse, its a gift :-) And my pleasure.

I want to be expert in areas such as General Relativity and of course that will never be possible without the math... but that is my lot.

In this case its not that important. GR is intutive enough with rubber sheet examples if you can understand the concepts you would appreciate it just as well. I strong recommend a brief history of time, and also the universe in a nutshell, or just universe in a nutshell. Both books presents rather modern cosmological and physics theories in rather math-free terms that any one can enjoy. There is something to be said for popular science

Cheers,
Steve

[xelasnave]

Thanks from me Steve it is great to get a look from the inside as it were.
alex

[xelasnave]

Steve I did not see your last post and now thank you for that one.
I note you are in Sydney so I offer you my service should you need it an any area I could possibly help you. I am not bad with my hands as they say or finding the right folk for a job. Anything.. anything at all I would be honored to help.

Thanks for the book suggestions.
And the encouragement generally.

alex

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by freespace

For those interested, I can try and see if I can nab a PDF off him of his work, and maybe the slides too.

That would be sweet, it would be interesting in itself to see first hand how one presents an alternate theory, let alone having an in depth read of the theory

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

I also thank you Steve standing on top of Alex's shoulders as it were in my 'newest-to-oldest' forum structure

Plus, what ever you can gleam regarding the new theory would be awesome if you could obtain and share. There are dozen, probably hundreds of intensely interested members in this location.

Respectfully yours.

[bojan]

This is an interesting site for alternative cosmologies... The subscrittion to a newsletter is also possible :-)

http://www.cosmology.info/

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Thanks for the link Bojan, I just subscribed

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

This is an interesting site for alternative cosmologies... The subscrittion to a newsletter is also possible :-)

http://www.cosmology.info/

Thank you very much for the link Bojan .
I have only read the titles contained in each news letter however will over time read each article.
I had a chuckle to see Big bang a religion being discussed as science given my unkind assessment somewhere above... cant wait to read that one but I will start at the start and work my way thru the lot.

If nothing else there seems to be at least a few folk out there who are prepared to question the current big bang models which I see as a good thing as it means the observations that are inconsistent with the model are deal with... somehow...

Is this site a front for ID or do you think they have an axe to grind?

I have not figured out what their game may be yet but on the face of it at least issues are being addressed... thank goodness I thought it was all in my clumbsy hands

Thanks again looks like some interesting weeks of reading lay ahead for me.
alex

[bojan]

You are welcome :-)
LIke with everything else, articles on this website have to be carefully considered before making any conclusions...

[xelasnave]

I suspect the "Fractal Universe" is put forward with something in mind possibly and the "äbsence of background radiation shadows in certain instances" I fell for earlier ... but Bojan I assure you I wont be sold a pup... I already have one (gravity rain) and dont need another .
Thanks again
alex