Posted on 08/18/2010 10:06:11 AM PDT by decimon
About the same amount of mass that you’ll find between the average liberal’s ears.
I forgot, I miss - spelled huge.
Deval Patrick is a hugh Mass Hole
Obama can provide estimates of up to a trillion.
How Much Black Makes a Mass Hole?
Glad you fixed that. Spelling is a series matter.
” Obama can provide estimates of up to a trillion. “
Which will be promptly debunked by the CBO - as soon as it’s too late to do anything about it....
Maybe Dark matter acts as a catalyst in neutron stars for converting them into black holes by neutralizing the strong nuclear force or something.
......or something.
I love astronomy. You can make up whatever crap you want, and use it as factual support for your theories.
Like the argument that this magnetar was part of a binary system, and that they split in a violent escape from the cluster.
While it explains where the other half of the pair went, it doesn’t explain why the magnetar did not leave the cluster.
Then there is the assumption that Mass can be inferred from Size without taking density into consideration. Maybe the magnetar had a different density.
I also like the fact that while observations and deductions were based on visual information, this cluster is one of the hardest clusters to ‘visually’ see.
Plus,what makes anyone sure black holes even exist?
Perhaps you have some theories you’d like to advance for
the stellar phenomena?
Or are you just going to throw crap?
You can do the math yourself. Past a certain density, the mass will collapse in on itself.
As for 95 percent mass loss in a binary system, ever hear of Roche limits. Close binaries can and do share mass.
Three, as for the star which was tossed, my thought is that the binary is the magnetar, and the original companion was tossed by the force of the supernova explosion.
Thanks for the laughter, needed that! Memories of earlier posters.
See? Another unproven assumption.
Past a certain density, the mass will collapse in on itself.
Past, as in 'above' a certain density?
Given that mass is a constant (less the amount being consumed daily), if the size of the star increased, the density would decrease. I could see how a decrease in density would cause the collapse in on itself.
If we go with an 'increase' in density, I assume you are positing that the increase in gravity would produce the collapse.
If the density and size are increasing, the star must be intaking mass, instead of giving it off (as energy in the EM spectrum). This makes no physical nor logical sense.
As for 95 percent mass loss in a binary system, ever hear of Roche limits. Close binaries can and do share mass.
Please. Children may be reading this.
Three, as for the star which was tossed, my thought is that the binary is the magnetar, and the original companion was tossed by the force of the supernova explosion.
Yes, but was it a legal divorce?
Are you saying the magnetar has a new companion?
About a trillion dollars in deficit stimulus spending
Graceg 's theory is just as logical, and provable, and backed by the same facts as the one in this article.
Unproven? I’ve done the math. You can do it too.
The best way to prove something is to do it yourself.
“Given that mass is a constant (less the amount being consumed daily), if the size of the star increased, the density would decrease. I could see how a decrease in density would cause the collapse in on itself.”
Sigh.
You know anything about hydrostatic equilibrium? Stars aren’t solid. The only thing that keeps them out is the outward pressure of the fusion reactions from the core. Think of a balloon.
What happens is that as the star exhausts it’s fuel, the composition changes, from Hydrogen to helium to heavier elements, all the way to iron. Iron actually absorbs energy in nuclear fusion, so it chokes the core. What happens then, is that the mass of the star collapses in on itself.
In a binary system, what happens is that as the star ages, it expands massively. Once the star expands past a certain point, it crosses the ‘roche limit’, where the force of gravity from the companion, exceeds that of the expanding star.
Then you have what is called ‘mass transfer’. The mass from the larger star infalls onto the companion. This will continue to the point, where matter stops infalling as the star falls below the roche limit. However, the companion will now have considerably more mass dumped on it and will accelerate it’s evolution.
This is why I believe that it was the former ‘companion’ that became the magnetar. Once the former companion expands, you get the same thing happening, where massloss occurs from the companion back to the original. Except at this point, the star has consumed all of it’s fissionable material in the core, and collapses. This forms a supernova where the remnent left behind is the magentar.
Sure. There are a multitude of things in the Universe that we don't yet understand.
Scientists do their best, and come up with theories. Some of which stand, some do not.
For instance, last week, scientists announced the proton was 4% smaller than science had THEORIZED it was, and that this caused other theories to be reconsidered, and our understanding of physics to (again, like for the 10th time this year) completely change.
Or are you just going to throw crap?
I listed the assumptions I disagreed with and specified why. I am only questioning their theory where they base it on other 'unproven assumptions'. How is that just throwing crap?
Or are we not allowed to 'question' our scientists, in this country?
Well Dark matter being a somewhat unknown entity you could blame it for many “missing holes” in the cosmology theories.
I also think that the idea there could be “Quark Stars” ie, neutron stars that have degenerated due to gravity to break down the quark binding force. So the star becomes essentially a quark soup held together by immense gravity. Now most people in cosmology thing that the “Dark Matter” is weakly interacting massive particles. If the Dark matter would affect the repulsive forces of quarks in quark stars it could be a catalyst to the creation of a singularity.
You know anything about hydrostatic equilibrium?
Yes. It is what forms silver globes that many see as UFO's.
Stars aren’t solid.
Great news for next time I get pulled into the gravity well of a large Star. I can just hit the LightSpeed Button and zip right through the middle of it.
The only thing that keeps them out is the outward pressure of the fusion reactions from the core.
Is the core solid?
Think of a balloon.
I did. Before you mentioned it. However, I couldn't find any facts that would make it a good analogy. For further proof, you never mention it or how it compares to a Star, in any of the rest of your comment.
What happens is that as the star exhausts it’s fuel, the composition changes, from Hydrogen to helium to heavier elements, all the way to iron.
Sounds pretty solid.
Iron actually absorbs energy in nuclear fusion, so it chokes the core. What happens then, is that the mass of the star collapses in on itself.
I thought it burned off it's fuel (mass). Where did all the mass come from?
In a binary system, what happens is that as the star ages, it expands massively.
Wouldn't it's density decrease ? Or does it expand because the helium turns to iron, increasing gravity, which is what makes it get bigger?
Once the star expands past a certain point, it crosses the ‘roche limit’, where the force of gravity from the companion, exceeds that of the expanding star.
No problem with that.
Then you have what is called ‘mass transfer’. The mass from the larger star infalls onto the companion.
Only if the larger star has less gravity (larger size, less gravity), and the smaller star has more density , and more gravity.
This will continue to the point, where matter stops infalling as the star falls below the roche limit.
Isn't that just another way of saying when the energy exchange balances?
However, the companion will now have considerably more mass dumped on it and will accelerate it’s evolution.
There is always a price.
This is why I believe that it was the former ‘companion’ that became the magnetar. Once the former companion expands, you get the same thing happening, where massloss occurs from the companion back to the original. Except at this point, the star has consumed all of it’s fissionable material in the core, and collapses. This forms a supernova where the remnent left behind is the magentar.
Why wouldn't the first star be turned into a supernova ? If the second star absorbed the 'mass' (energy) of the first star, why would it be out of fuel and start to collapse?
BTW, your theory is just as good as the original article's postulation.
It is good to have an open mind and 'think' for yourself. Your theory is just as provable as any that Stephen Hawking proposes (and he has admitted he was wrong before).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.