Hello ladies and gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.
Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. Even more intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.
Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption. Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science! We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation. On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.
One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for. Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center has to be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it's the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them. The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there. To make matters worse, if we were really honest about the situation we would have to acknowledge there is no process at all within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....
Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.] Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The physics would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole. I think that's all the math says. Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius. Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By [unconventional yet mathematical] definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius. Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon so the shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave is a mystery but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's a shockwave which creates a nova. The physics of prevailing theory demand that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.
First of all, we allowed the shockwave but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be. According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy. Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support extended periods of maximum intensity. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.
There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there and see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it! So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.
What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.
Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. It's enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously.
Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity.
Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.
Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.
The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova. Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.
That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.
"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star–about the size of our sun–as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the studypublished in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”
-Courtesy of: http://www.sciencerocksmyworld.com/...lack-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/
What's Mother Nature telling us here? Is this observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.
This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force the core into Schwarzchild radius, convert those neutrons into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos -two roughly equal jets, along the axis of magnetic field.
The nature of the jet(s) wasn't mentioned in this article. And though this event got a fair amount of publicity in some scientific circles, I didn't see any article that mentioned the nature of the jet(s). I mention it here because the mathematics of black hole theory places limitations on the physics of the environment, just as the physics of our thought experiment places different limitations. The point is a single jet should have been seen coming from the point of impact under the physics of black hole theory. As mentioned above, the "Nova" model predicts dual jets along the magnetic field axis. It's a critical distinction that will also go a long way to demonstrate which line of reasoning aligns with physical reality best. The "Nova" model has an excellent track record so far. I fully suspect there were jets along the magnetic axis rather than a jet at the impact.
As for what you believe, that is for you to decide. Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory [academia] is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova Model. The Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity, we know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist... Mother Nature told me so. Thanks for reading.
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.
Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. Even more intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.
Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption. Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science! We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation. On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.
One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for. Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center has to be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it's the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them. The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there. To make matters worse, if we were really honest about the situation we would have to acknowledge there is no process at all within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....
Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.] Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The physics would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole. I think that's all the math says. Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius. Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By [unconventional yet mathematical] definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius. Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon so the shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave is a mystery but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's a shockwave which creates a nova. The physics of prevailing theory demand that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.
First of all, we allowed the shockwave but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be. According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy. Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support extended periods of maximum intensity. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.
There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there and see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it! So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.
What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.
Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. It's enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy. Our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously.
Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity.
Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.
Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.
The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova. Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.
That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.
"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star–about the size of our sun–as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
“These events are extremely rare,” says van Velzen, lead author of the studypublished in the journal Science. “It’s the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months.”
-Courtesy of: http://www.sciencerocksmyworld.com/...lack-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/
What's Mother Nature telling us here? Is this observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.
This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force the core into Schwarzchild radius, convert those neutrons into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos -two roughly equal jets, along the axis of magnetic field.
The nature of the jet(s) wasn't mentioned in this article. And though this event got a fair amount of publicity in some scientific circles, I didn't see any article that mentioned the nature of the jet(s). I mention it here because the mathematics of black hole theory places limitations on the physics of the environment, just as the physics of our thought experiment places different limitations. The point is a single jet should have been seen coming from the point of impact under the physics of black hole theory. As mentioned above, the "Nova" model predicts dual jets along the magnetic field axis. It's a critical distinction that will also go a long way to demonstrate which line of reasoning aligns with physical reality best. The "Nova" model has an excellent track record so far. I fully suspect there were jets along the magnetic axis rather than a jet at the impact.
As for what you believe, that is for you to decide. Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory [academia] is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova Model. The Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity, we know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist... Mother Nature told me so. Thanks for reading.
