On Friday, January 12, 2007 at 11:32:33 AM UTC, oriel36 wrote:
> The efficiency of internal stellar processes indicate that stellar
> evolution may exist as a two step process -
> http://www.hubblespacephotos.com/pics/sn1987a.jpg
> In other words,the abundance of heavier elements that make existence
> possible on Earth may have come from our own central star
> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08oct99_1.htm
> This concept based on stellar evolution as a two step process leaves
> no room for the non-geometric 'black' entity ,the outlines of a new
> approach are so general that it can only be presented as a means to
> redirect attention away from a contemporary view of stellar evolution
> as a one step process .It does however provide a guide to where the
> heavier elements on Earth originated as a consequence of the
> efficiency of stellar processes but what these processes are is too
> early to say.
> Martin Brown wrote:
> > Sitav wrote:
> >
> > > OK. AGNs are hard enough to understand but just the basic idea of a
> > > black hole is so confusing.
> >
> > It shouldn't be all that confusing. The demented cosmic vacuum cleaner
> > black hole of science fiction and edutainment programmes is
> > fundamentally wrong and very confusing though. It usually fails to obey
> > the laws of physics thanks to Hollywood special effects.
> >
> > Gravity determines the escape velocity from the surface of a planet (or
> > any other body). In the case of the Earth around 7 miles a second.
> > Laplace first wondered classically about what would happen if you had
> > the entire mass of the sun squashed into a diameter of just 3km. At
> > that point the escape velocity at the surface becomes equal to the
> > speed of light.
> >
> > If the sun was spontaneously turned into a black hole of the same mass,
> > nothing much would change in our solar system. The planets would still
> > orbit it in pretty much the same way as before (obviously we would no
> > longer have any sunlight).
> >
> > > A black hole is formed when a star falls in
> > > on itself. What does that mean?
> >
> > Whilst a star is burning it is held up by thermal pressure - inflated a
> > bit like a hot air balloon. When the star runs out of fuel there is
> > nothing left to provide heat to keep it from falling in on itself under
> > the effect of gravity and the whole thing implodes as a supernova.
> >
> > > And even on my previous article about
> > > AGN the answers i got were completely incomprehensible for me (i am
> > > only 12! give me a break!).
> >
> > Whatever happened to those child friendly astrophysics collecting
> > cards?
> >
> > > As that star "falls" does it rip a hole in
> > > space and time forming the "hole"?
> >
> > No. Most stars are nowhere near heavy enough to form a black hole. They
> > end up as white dwarfs or neutron stars which are much more compact
> > than ordinary stars. But still not as a black hole. If the dead star is
> > sufficiently massive then there is no force of nature we know of that
> > can prevent total gravitational collapse to a point singularity.
> >
> > A neutron star is only about 5x bigger in diameter than a black hole of
> > the same mass. But neutrons can still provide a strong enough force to
> > prevent total collapse.
> >
> > Even when a black hole is formed there is no hole in our spacetime - at
> > least not one that you can ever report on. To see the central
> > singularity you have to be inside the event horizon and from there you
> > cannot communicate with the universe outside.
> >
> > > And after all that what is a white
> > > hole?
> >
> > A hypothetical conjecture that may or may not exist (and probably
> > doesn't).
> >
> > You are probably better off finding a local library with some popular
> > astronomy and science books in it that are at about the right level.
> > Usenet is not always a reliable source of info.
> >
> > And many of your questions are offtopic in the amateur astronomy groups
> > - not even the professionals have telescopes that can see black holes
> > directly. Unfortunately you will get mostly gibberish answers from
> > cranks if you post in sci.astro.
> >
> > BTW Take a look at the Chandra Crab nebula movie to see what an
> > accretion disk looks like.
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin Brown

Like most things, research has been far too slow in these matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aPj--bedew

The images from Webb of SN1987a basically draw closer to not just stellar evolution but also solar system evolution as a two-stage process.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasawebbtelescope/53154921769/in/album-72177720305127361/

There is always that element that would cut off its nose to spite its face, however, the geometry of stellar evolution and certain supernovae follow distinct patterns. Current researchers announce the supernova event as the death of a star far too soon when it is just as productive to consider it the birth of a solar system.

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:21:50 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2007 at 11:32:33 AM UTC, oriel36 wrote:
> > The efficiency of internal stellar processes indicate that stellar
> > evolution may exist as a two step process -
> > http://www.hubblespacephotos.com/pics/sn1987a.jpg
> > In other words,the abundance of heavier elements that make existence
> > possible on Earth may have come from our own central star
> > http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast08oct99_1.htm
> > This concept based on stellar evolution as a two step process leaves
> > no room for the non-geometric 'black' entity ,the outlines of a new
> > approach are so general that it can only be presented as a means to
> > redirect attention away from a contemporary view of stellar evolution
> > as a one step process .It does however provide a guide to where the
> > heavier elements on Earth originated as a consequence of the
> > efficiency of stellar processes but what these processes are is too
> > early to say.
> > Martin Brown wrote:
> > > Sitav wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK. AGNs are hard enough to understand but just the basic idea of a
> > > > black hole is so confusing.
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be all that confusing. The demented cosmic vacuum cleaner
> > > black hole of science fiction and edutainment programmes is
> > > fundamentally wrong and very confusing though. It usually fails to obey
> > > the laws of physics thanks to Hollywood special effects.
> > >
> > > Gravity determines the escape velocity from the surface of a planet (or
> > > any other body). In the case of the Earth around 7 miles a second.
> > > Laplace first wondered classically about what would happen if you had
> > > the entire mass of the sun squashed into a diameter of just 3km. At
> > > that point the escape velocity at the surface becomes equal to the
> > > speed of light.
> > >
> > > If the sun was spontaneously turned into a black hole of the same mass,
> > > nothing much would change in our solar system. The planets would still
> > > orbit it in pretty much the same way as before (obviously we would no
> > > longer have any sunlight).
> > >
> > > > A black hole is formed when a star falls in
> > > > on itself. What does that mean?
> > >
> > > Whilst a star is burning it is held up by thermal pressure - inflated a
> > > bit like a hot air balloon. When the star runs out of fuel there is
> > > nothing left to provide heat to keep it from falling in on itself under
> > > the effect of gravity and the whole thing implodes as a supernova.
> > >
> > > > And even on my previous article about
> > > > AGN the answers i got were completely incomprehensible for me (i am
> > > > only 12! give me a break!).
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to those child friendly astrophysics collecting
> > > cards?
> > >
> > > > As that star "falls" does it rip a hole in
> > > > space and time forming the "hole"?
> > >
> > > No. Most stars are nowhere near heavy enough to form a black hole. They
> > > end up as white dwarfs or neutron stars which are much more compact
> > > than ordinary stars. But still not as a black hole. If the dead star is
> > > sufficiently massive then there is no force of nature we know of that
> > > can prevent total gravitational collapse to a point singularity.
> > >
> > > A neutron star is only about 5x bigger in diameter than a black hole of
> > > the same mass. But neutrons can still provide a strong enough force to
> > > prevent total collapse.
> > >
> > > Even when a black hole is formed there is no hole in our spacetime - at
> > > least not one that you can ever report on. To see the central
> > > singularity you have to be inside the event horizon and from there you
> > > cannot communicate with the universe outside.
> > >
> > > > And after all that what is a white
> > > > hole?
> > >
> > > A hypothetical conjecture that may or may not exist (and probably
> > > doesn't).
> > >
> > > You are probably better off finding a local library with some popular
> > > astronomy and science books in it that are at about the right level.
> > > Usenet is not always a reliable source of info.
> > >
> > > And many of your questions are offtopic in the amateur astronomy groups
> > > - not even the professionals have telescopes that can see black holes
> > > directly. Unfortunately you will get mostly gibberish answers from
> > > cranks if you post in sci.astro.
> > >
> > > BTW Take a look at the Chandra Crab nebula movie to see what an
> > > accretion disk looks like.
> > > Good luck.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin Brown
> Like most things, research has been far too slow in these matters.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aPj--bedew
>
> The images from Webb of SN1987a basically draw closer to not just stellar evolution but also solar system evolution as a two-stage process.
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasawebbtelescope/53154921769/in/album-72177720305127361/
>
> There is always that element that would cut off its nose to spite its face, however, the geometry of stellar evolution and certain supernovae follow distinct patterns. Current researchers announce the supernova event as the death of a star far too soon when it is just as productive to consider it the birth of a solar system.

Unfortunately for you, there is zero evidence to support such a wild theory....

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe