Page 1 of 1

Black holes quasar

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:21 pm
So I was just thinking about black holes the other day and about how they suck up everything including light and when the black hole gets full of matter it converts that matter into pure energy called a quasar and burps it out. So I was thinking that if a black hole turns hard matter into pure energy/light that the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

So do black holes not actually grow, long term? Do they not have a stronger pull from sucking up planets or is that planet converted and spit out and the black hole keeps its normal force.

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:04 am
Artimas wrote:So I was just thinking about black holes the other day and about how they suck up everything including light and when the black hole gets full of matter it converts that matter into pure energy called a quasar and burps it out. So I was thinking that if a black hole turns hard matter into pure energy/light that the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

So do black holes not actually grow, long term? Do they not have a stronger pull from sucking up planets or is that planet converted and spit out and the black hole keeps its normal force.

It's true that black holes suck in matter, but far more of the matter in the vicinity is accelerated around and is simply flung out rather than being sucked into the event horizon, so I think of them more as tornadoes than vacuum cleaners. The light from a quasar is more likely from the matter swirling around the black hole than emanating from the black hole itself.

Black holes radiate Hawking Radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation and are expected to evaporate eventually.

Matter is energy. I think of matter as energy with a bit more energy E=mc^2 and E=hf, so m=hf/c^2 and we see that mass is a function of frequency and 2 constants. h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light, which is thought to be constant in a vacuum (vacuum defined as the absence of anything with charge).

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:51 am
Serendipper wrote:
Artimas wrote:So I was just thinking about black holes the other day and about how they suck up everything including light and when the black hole gets full of matter it converts that matter into pure energy called a quasar and burps it out. So I was thinking that if a black hole turns hard matter into pure energy/light that the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

So do black holes not actually grow, long term? Do they not have a stronger pull from sucking up planets or is that planet converted and spit out and the black hole keeps its normal force.

It's true that black holes suck in matter, but far more of the matter in the vicinity is accelerated around and is simply flung out rather than being sucked into the event horizon, so I think of them more as tornadoes than vacuum cleaners. The light from a quasar is more likely from the matter swirling around the black hole than emanating from the black hole itself.

Black holes radiate Hawking Radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation and are expected to evaporate eventually.

Matter is energy. I think of matter as energy with a bit more energy E=mc^2 and E=hf, so m=hf/c^2 and we see that mass is a function of frequency and 2 constants. h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light, which is thought to be constant in a vacuum (vacuum defined as the absence of anything with charge).

Thanks for the response and clearing things up for me. It's all very interesting.

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:17 am
Artimas wrote:Thanks for the response and clearing things up for me. It's all very interesting.

You're welcome and I agree!

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:12 am
A video I made about 12 years ago after returning from a space mission I was assigned to by NASA. I was to document the crews activity while we orbited the black hole of Cygnus X-1. The following is from footage the government allowed me to make public after the mission.

https://vimeo.com/264231613

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:05 am
Artimas wrote:So I was just thinking about black holes the other day and about how they suck up everything including light and when the black hole gets full of matter it converts that matter into pure energy called a quasar and burps it out. So I was thinking that if a black hole turns hard matter into pure energy/light that the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

So do black holes not actually grow, long term? Do they not have a stronger pull from sucking up planets or is that planet converted and spit out and the black hole keeps its normal force.

First of all, what is pure energy?
Is it that which has affectance, but can't be affected?
Or is it stuff without mass, but I mean light has mass, right?
If it's getting sucked into a black hole?
Or is it just stuff that's really very vibrant, fast?
Is it stuff that behaves like a wave, as opposed to a particle?
Like electromagnetism?

Anyway.

My gut's telling me black hole is a misnomer, that we ought to call them black or dark stars instead.
That's all they are, stars that're so densely massive, not even something as fine as visible light eludes them.
There's no hole, no tear in the fabric of space time continuum, forget it.

And just like stars, they grow, to the point where eventually they either explode, are torn asunder, or implode, becoming even more massively dense.
Black stars suck up other black and luminous stars, and few other black and millions of luminous stars fall into orbit round them.

But I think black stars might be the largest macroparticles out there, and then gigantic plants, animals and objects are made out of these macroparticles, just as we're made out of microparticles.
So the cosmos is fractal, like that, the microcosm contains the macrocosm, although perhaps everything's a bit different at every level or scale.
So you see galaxy is to black star, what solar system is to luminous stars.

Actually black stars give off light too it's just too overwhelmingly powerful for us to see.
And just as luminous stars and their solar systems orbit one another, so to do black stars and their galaxies, but whether there's a few more star stages of massiveness beyond the black star, that I'm not sure of.
I think that might be it, because the universe stars looking like neurons once you increase the scale further, as opposed to particles.

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:50 am
Antithesis wrote:
Artimas wrote:So I was just thinking about black holes the other day and about how they suck up everything including light and when the black hole gets full of matter it converts that matter into pure energy called a quasar and burps it out. So I was thinking that if a black hole turns hard matter into pure energy/light that the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

So do black holes not actually grow, long term? Do they not have a stronger pull from sucking up planets or is that planet converted and spit out and the black hole keeps its normal force.

First of all, what is pure energy?
Is it that which has affectance, but can't be affected?
Or is it stuff without mass, but I mean light has mass, right?
If it's getting sucked into a black hole?
Or is it just stuff that's really very vibrant, fast?
Is it stuff that behaves like a wave, as opposed to a particle?
Like electromagnetism?

Anyway.

My gut's telling me black hole is a misnomer, that we ought to call them black or dark stars instead.
That's all they are, stars that're so densely massive, not even something as fine as visible light eludes them.
There's no hole, no tear in the fabric of space time continuum, forget it.

And just like stars, they grow, to the point where eventually they either explode, are torn asunder, or implode, becoming even more massively dense.
Black stars suck up other black and luminous stars, and few other black and millions of luminous stars fall into orbit round them.

But I think black stars might be the largest macroparticles out there, and then gigantic plants, animals and objects are made out of these macroparticles, just as we're made out of microparticles.
So the cosmos is fractal, like that, the microcosm contains the macrocosm, although perhaps everything's a bit different at every level or scale.
So you see galaxy is to black star, what solar system is to luminous stars.

Actually black stars give off light too it's just too overwhelmingly powerful for us to see.
And just as luminous stars and their solar systems orbit one another, so to do black stars and their galaxies, but whether there's a few more star stages of massiveness beyond the black star, that I'm not sure of.
I think that might be it, because the universe stars looking like neurons once you increase the scale further, as opposed to particles.

Micro to macro, as above so below huh? Thatâ€™s a pretty interesting point you have on black holes just being extremely dense stars, it also would make sense.
What do you think of the Big Bang if it did happen, being a giant atom?

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:14 am
Artimas wrote:... the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

Does this event horizon make me look fat?

Re: Black holes quasar

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:19 pm
wtf wrote:
Artimas wrote:... the black hole would be losing mass/weight due to its burping and conversion of energy.

Does this event horizon make me look fat?

Lmao.