Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 108 of 108

Thread: Life and times of a black hole

  1. #101
    Super Moderator
    mtv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14,244
    Thanks
    3,929
    Thanked 8,426 Times in 4,232 Posts
    Rep Power
    2626
    Reputation
    102233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trash View Post
    No name calling here WhiteOx.
    On the contrary, trash.

    Your post above (#95) contains name-calling and insults.

    In addition, suggesting you will encourage other members to post negative reputation against another poster, simply because they have a different opinion to yours, is blatant trolling.

    Now knock it off, or infractions will follow.

    The same goes for you tytower.

    Both of you, get over it... and move on.



  • #102
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,004
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 1,784 Times in 829 Posts
    Rep Power
    587
    Reputation
    18774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtv View Post
    On the contrary, trash.

    Your post above (#95) contains name-calling and insults.
    Your point is taken mtv.

    But still the main content of my posts is always on topic. The primary point of the post is to encourage Tytower to back up what his says. Nothing more and nothing less.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #103
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    120
    Reputation
    78

    Default

    I am warmed a little by the below post which admits that scientists have and do get it wrong with their age estimates and assumptions from data. The below post deals with the age of a particular star.



    I am intrigued by the statement therein " The more mass a star (has) , the shorter its lifespan "
    Thats an interesting statement when dealing with black masses that have Millions ,even Billions , of times the mass of our sun.
    So does their time get shorter because of it?
    I don't think so and don't see that the statement could be right because it is clearly accepted now that all off a galaxy's stars are falling toward a central black mass which therefore must outlast the stars generally.
    Last edited by tytower; 17-01-17 at 08:07 AM.
    My Family and my Property are not Government business. Governments should do what they were designed to do . Govern the issues best done by a central body.

    To defeat corruption in the public service , give them three times the penalty.

  • #104
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    5,205
    Thanks
    3,725
    Thanked 2,654 Times in 1,313 Posts
    Rep Power
    1122
    Reputation
    44340

    Default

    It's all still a guess based upon hypothesis which are never able to be tested given the time periods involved.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #105
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    120
    Reputation
    78

    Default

    Yes you are quite right Semme . Time is the big limiter . Its amazing though what can be discovered by good analysis based on what little data we can see.
    My Family and my Property are not Government business. Governments should do what they were designed to do . Govern the issues best done by a central body.

    To defeat corruption in the public service , give them three times the penalty.

  • #106
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,004
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 1,784 Times in 829 Posts
    Rep Power
    587
    Reputation
    18774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tytower View Post
    I am warmed a little by the below post which admits that scientists have and do get it wrong with their age estimates and assumptions from data.
    It's not so much that their previous estimates were wrong, but rather that this star is an exception. Once they became aware of the cause (transfer of material from a population 1 star to a population 2) then a correction can be made but the same date method is still correct. Population 1 stars are high metal stars. Population 2 are low metal stars. Population 3 are no metal stars. This rule still stands firm.
    The exceptions, and they are exceptions, are caused by events which are not in the main sequence. Blue stragglers and parasitic stars like 49 Lib.

    I am intrigued by the statement therein " The more mass a star (has) , the shorter its lifespan "
    This statement is still correct. The higher the mass of a star, the quicker it burns through it's fuel and thus the shorter it's lifespan.
    Giant stars typically live less than 100 million years before ending their lives as supernovas.
    Mid range mass yellow dwarf stars live for billions of years before ending their lives as supergiants and then white dwarfs.
    Low mass red dwarf stars have life spans in the order of 10 of billions to hundreds of billions of years.

    Thats an interesting statement when dealing with black masses that have Millions ,even Billions , of times the mass of our sun.
    So does their time get shorter because of it?
    No because these objects are no longer stars. While we call neutron stars, magnetars, pulsars, quark stars, quasars and black holes "stars" because they emit radiation, they are not really stars in the true sense. They are no longer on the main sequence.
    We might also put white dwarf and brown dwarf stars in this category.

    The definition of the mass to life span ratio only applies to stars that burn (fuse) hydrogen.

    I don't think so and don't see that the statement could be right because it is clearly accepted now that all off a galaxy's stars are falling toward a central black mass which therefore must outlast the stars generally.
    This isn't correct either. The first reason is to realise that while stars are orbiting the galactic center of gravity, they are not falling toward it anymore than the moon is falling towards the Earth or Neptune is falling toward the sun.
    Second is to realise that this statement is based on the above incorrect statement. You cannot discover a new truth with incorrect evidence based on a previous error.

    Sag A* does not have a shorter life span than the Baryonic stars and matter orbiting it because of it's large mass. It's life span is hundreds of billions to trillions of years not withstanding the impending collisions with Andromeda* and other members of the Virgo cluster and the Laniakea supercluster. The result will be mergers with other supermassive black holes and other galaxies resulting in a very large elliptical galaxy with a very large black hole.

    Small black holes have shorter lives than large black holes.
    Small black holes evaporate in hundreds of billions of years and supermassive black holes in hundreds of trillions of years.
    How quickly they evaporate is a function of their temperature vs that of the surrounding universe.
    Last edited by trash; 18-01-17 at 06:54 PM.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • #107
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    5,205
    Thanks
    3,725
    Thanked 2,654 Times in 1,313 Posts
    Rep Power
    1122
    Reputation
    44340

    Default

    impending collisions with Andromeda*
    What is the qualifier here? The asterisk points to something.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #108
    Senior Member
    trash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tamworth
    Posts
    3,004
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 1,784 Times in 829 Posts
    Rep Power
    587
    Reputation
    18774

    Default

    Andromeda* is the shorthand name of the central supermassive black hole as opposed to Andromeda M31 Galaxy.
    Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to trash For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (19-01-17)

  • Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

    Members who have read this thread: 22

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •