Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #896866 > unrolled thread

Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-09-15 14:51 +0000
    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-19 17:15 +0000
      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-09-19 20:19 +0000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:12 +1000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:11 +0200
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-21 17:13 +1000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-22 00:40 +1000
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-21 21:00 +0000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-21 14:51 -0700
            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought someone <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com> - 2026-09-26 13:30 +0000
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 11:15 -0500
                Horizons (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 18:29 +0000
                  Re: Horizons Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-28 10:10 -0700
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 19:09 -0700
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:20 +1000
      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-19 17:19 -0700
        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-20 17:21 +1000
          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-20 12:59 -0700
            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-21 00:25 +0200
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Trevor <shut.up@once.invalid> - 2026-09-20 23:48 -0700
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-21 17:21 +1000
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-21 15:07 +0200
              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-22 13:52 -0700
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-23 16:23 +1000
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 16:36 -0700
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:44 +0200
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:46 +1000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:13 -0700
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:28 -0700
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 06:52 +0200
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 15:58 +1000
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 12:10 -0700
                              mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-25 20:11 +0000
                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 04:40 +0200
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-23 22:24 -0700
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-24 16:53 +1000
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:31 +0200
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-24 19:49 -0700
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 16:14 +1000
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-25 13:19 -0700
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 10:24 -0700
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 12:25 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 20:27 -0700
                                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:26 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-27 22:29 -0700
                                Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-28 16:34 +1000
                                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-28 12:14 -0700
                                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-29 17:06 +1000
                                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Old McDonald <eieio@patch.corn> - 2026-09-29 11:11 -0700
                                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@htigct.com> - 2026-09-29 14:35 -0700
                                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:11 +1000
                                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-30 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-30 17:16 +1000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 07:11 +0200
                    mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 16:37 +0000
                      Re: mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:10 +0200
                      Re: mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-25 16:25 +1000
                    Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-09-25 07:43 -0700
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 03:09 +1000
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-25 20:47 +0200
                          Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 15:36 +1000
                            Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-09-26 10:10 +0200
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-09-26 21:01 +1000
                              Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 11:03 -0500
                                Hawking Radiation (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 17:20 +0000
                                  Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 17:51 +0000
                                  Re: Hawking Radiation John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-26 13:22 -0500
                                    Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-26 20:23 +0000
                                      Re: Hawking Radiation ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-27 09:18 +0000
                      Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2026-09-25 11:36 -0500
                        mass (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-25 18:09 +0000
                          Re: mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:19 +0200
                        Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:24 +0200
                  Re: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 14:54 -0400
                    Spacelike Correlations (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 19:08 +0000
                      Re: Spacelike Correlations ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-24 19:31 +0000
                        Re: Spacelike Correlations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:01 +0200
                      Re: Spacelike Correlations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:59 +0200
                    Veritasium (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 00:27 +0200
                      Re: Veritasium William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 16:04 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#896866 — Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought

From:
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260914102429.htm

Supermassive black hole winds are 100 times more powerful than scientists
thought

Supermassive black holes may unleash winds 100 times more powerful than
expected, spreading energy across hundreds of thousands of light-years.
Date:
 September 15, 2026
Source:
 Tohoku University
Summary:
 Astronomers have discovered that winds from a supermassive black hole are
 about 100 times more powerful than previously thought.
 XRISM observations showed the resulting turbulence spreading roughly 300,000
 light-years, extending far beyond the black hole’s host galaxy.
 The energy involved rivals several billion supernova explosions, revealing
 just how dramatically black holes can influence the space around them.

Maybe black holes also eject Le Sage particles,
and then we live in a 'sea' of black holes, where grsvity is simply the effect
of the Le Sage particles.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#896900

The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.

-- 
For full context, visit https://www.electrondepot.com/electrodesign/super-massive-black-hole-winds-are-100-times-more-powerfull-4410948-.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896901

someone
<2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
wrote:
> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. 

Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by
spacelike intervals.  What statistics did you use to establish randomness?
;)

>The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.

Right, black holes are always spitting out mass, which is why they never
get too big. ;)

Cheers 

Phil Hobbs 



-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs  Principal Consultant  ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics  Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896908

On 20/09/2026 6:19 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> someone
> <2a59d59e3809f827ce709d3815e3950eef4a6a93af5557a93a7fdfba71460843@example.com>
> wrote:
>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
> 
> Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by
> spacelike intervals.  What statistics did you use to establish randomness?
> ;)
> 
>> The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
> 
> Right, black holes are always spitting out mass, which is why they never
> get too big. ;)

Black holes emit Hawking radiation from their event horizons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

A small black hole - less 5.00±0.04×10^11 kg - would have evaporated in 
13 billion years that have passed since the big bag.

This is lot less than the mass of the earth (5.9722 × 10²⁴ kilograms)

Bigger black holes do emit mass, but they can capture it too, and are 
more likely to get bigger than smaller. The earth captures meteors all 
the time.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896920

[Based on your statements I am not sure what you really think, so I will
take your statements at face value and ignore the smileys.]

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> someone [...] wrote:
>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. 
> 
> Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by
> spacelike intervals.

/Non sequitur./

>> The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
> 
> Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,

They do not.  There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole
to its outside when that lies in our universe.  That is what _defines_ a
black hole.

> which is why they never get too big. ;)

There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only
because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment
(the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to
its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational
acceleration in its environment due to it decrease.  IOW, the speed of
objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so
does the probability of the black hole growing further.

F'up2 sci.physics

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896927

On 21/09/2026 8:11 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [Based on your statements I am not sure what you really think, so I will
> take your statements at face value and ignore the smileys.]
> 
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> someone [...] wrote:
>>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
>>
>> Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by
>> spacelike intervals.
> 
> /Non sequitur./
> 
>>> The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
>>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
>>
>> Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,
> 
> They do not.  There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole
> to its outside when that lies in our universe.  That is what _defines_ a
> black hole.

Except for Hawking radiation. Those worldlines start at the e\vent horizon.
> 
>> which is why they never get too big. ;)
> 
> There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only
> because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment
> (the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to
> its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational
> acceleration in its environment due to it decrease.  IOW, the speed of
> objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so
> does the probability of the black hole growing further.

Hawking radiation means that no black hole is eternal - those created 
close to the Big Bang have to have been heavier than 5x10^11 kgm to have 
lasted until now - but there are plenty that are much heavier than that 
and will last for a remarkably long time.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896931

On 21/09/2026 8:11 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [Based on your statements I am not sure what you really think, so I will
> take your statements at face value and ignore the smileys.]
> 
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> someone [...] wrote:
>>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes.
>>
>> Good going figuring that out, given that they’re separated from us by
>> spacelike intervals.
> 
> /Non sequitur./
> 
>>> The universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a
>>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.
>>
>> Right, black holes are always spitting out mass,
> 
> They do not.  There are no geodesics that lead from inside a black hole
> to its outside when that lies in our universe.  That is what _defines_ a
> black hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

These create geodesics that originate at the event horizon, and the 
process of creating the radiation makes the black hole lighter

>> which is why they never get too big. ;)

They can get a bigger whenever they capture external mass. The gravity 
waves generated during that capture carry off some of mass, so the 
larger black hole is less than the sum of it parts. LIGO has recorded it 
happening.

> There _is_ a limit to the size of a (non-eternal) black hole not only
> because how it forms, but because it grows by clearing its environment
> (the radius/diameter of a Schwarzschild black hole is proportional to
> its mass), and so does, simplified Newtonian speaking, the gravitational
> acceleration in its environment due to it decrease.  IOW, the speed of
> objects that is required for them to not fall into it decreases, and so
> does the probability of the black hole growing further.
> 
> F'up2 sci.physics

You really don't seem to know as much as you seem to think you do.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896932

Physicists take this hypothesis seriously due to a few striking mathematical similarities between black holes and our universe:

The Density Match: If you calculate the average density of all the matter inside our observable universe, it perfectly matches the density required to form a black hole of that exact size.

Mirrored Horizons: The event horizon of a black hole marks a boundary from which light can never escape. Similarly, our universe has a cosmic horizon—a boundary beyond which light has not had enough time to reach us since the beginning of time.

This makes sense:

The Big Bounce over the Big Bang: Instead of our universe beginning as an infinitely dense singularity, the theory relies on a concept called the Big Bounce. When a massive star or gas cloud collapses into a black hole in a parent universe, extreme quantum effects or spacetime torsion prevent it from shrinking indefinitely. The matter reaches a peak compression point, halts, and rebounds violently—creating a rapidly expanding new spacetime that looks exactly like the Big Bang to anyone inside it.

Maybe not purely random, but chaotically random...

Interestingly, NASA scientist Donald Kessler was originally inspired by the evolution of the asteroid belt when he formulated his 1978 thesis. When cosmologists and astrophysicists look at the universe through the lens of a Kessler-style cascade, they apply it to the macro-evolution of celestial bodies.

-- 
For full context, visit https://www.electrondepot.com/electrodesign/super-massive-black-hole-winds-are-100-times-more-powerfull-4410948-.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896933

On 9/21/26 14:00, someone wrote:
> The Density Match: If you calculate the average density of all the 
> matter inside our observable universe, it perfectly matches the density 
> required to form a black hole of that exact size.

You can't possibly mean that the densities match. Or the sizes, in any 
spatial dimension, volume, whatever.

Are you saying that if you calculate how much mass exists in our 
observable universe, it perfectly matches the mass required to form a 
black hole of that exact mass?

I try to be deliberately silly sometimes, because nobody really knows 
much about this stuff. But they've got the credentials and sound 
confident. You may be right about whatever you're thinking above, but 
there's a language problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897000

Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is a vacuum in and of itself.

Consulting AI (again):

The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula is: 2GM/c^2 (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of light. Because volume grows much faster than radius (\(V \proportional to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less density to form than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is unimaginably dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower than water. If a black hole is large enough—say, the size of the observable universe—its required density drops to nearly nothing. 

The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on a cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c, calculated using the Hubble constant H: rho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you plug in the observed numbers for our universe, this critical density is incredibly low—about 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to roughly six hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space.

The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe (the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical cancellation happens. If you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of that total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly equals its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a universe within a universe quite remarkable.

-- 
For full context, visit https://www.electrondepot.com/electrodesign/super-massive-black-hole-winds-are-100-times-more-powerfull-4410948-.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897004

You are at the center of your observable universe.  I am at the center
of mine.  An observer in a galaxy a billion lightyears away is at the
center of hers.  None of these horizons coincide.  You can see galaxies
she can't and vice-versa.  You can see each other's galaxies, though.

All horizons are not black hole event horizons.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897005 — Horizons (was: Super massive black hole winds are 100 times more powerfull than scientists thought)

John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>You are at the center of your observable universe.  I am at the center
>of mine.  An observer in a galaxy a billion lightyears away is at the
>center of hers.  None of these horizons coincide.  You can see galaxies
>she can't and vice-versa.  You can see each other's galaxies, though.

  And then, there is the Rindler horizon for constantly accelerating
  observers. Photons following them from a certain distance can never
  reach them while these observers accelerate. See also the video "Rel-
  ativity 105a: Acceleration - Hyperbolic Motion and Rindler Horizon"
  by Eigenchris at 25 minutes and 30 seconds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897025 — Re: Horizons

On 9/26/26 11:29, Stefan Ram wrote:
> John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> wrote or quoted:
>> You are at the center of your observable universe.  I am at the center
>> of mine.  An observer in a galaxy a billion lightyears away is at the
>> center of hers.  None of these horizons coincide.  You can see galaxies
>> she can't and vice-versa.  You can see each other's galaxies, though.
> 
>    And then, there is the Rindler horizon for constantly accelerating
>    observers. Photons following them from a certain distance can never
>    reach them while these observers accelerate. 

How about gravity following them?

See also the video "Rel-
>    ativity 105a: Acceleration - Hyperbolic Motion and Rindler Horizon"
>    by Eigenchris at 25 minutes and 30 seconds.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897034

On 9/26/26 06:30, someone wrote:
> Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is a 
> vacuum in and of itself.
> 
> Consulting AI (again):
> 
> The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a 
> black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event 
> horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula is: 2GM/c^2 
> (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed of 
> light. Because volume grows much faster than radius (\(V \proportional 
> to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less density to form 
> than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is unimaginably 
> dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower than water. If 
> a black hole is large enough—say, the size of the observable 
> universe—its required density drops to nearly nothing.Â
> 
> The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density 
> of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on a 
> cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c, calculated 
> using the Hubble constant H: rho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you plug in the 
> observed numbers for our universe, this critical density is incredibly 
> low—about 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to roughly six hydrogen 
> atoms per cubic meter of space.
> 
> The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe 
> (the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is 
> inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical 
> cancellation happens. If you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of that 
> total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly equals 
> its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a universe 
> within a universe quite remarkable.

That was more satisfying.
I have two theories, one a load of verbiage with analytical support. 
Randomly nested Penrose tile universes could be in there.
Both will annoy Bill Sloman.

‘Attractive force’ gravity between masses requires at least two sources, 
and they’re the same stuff, mass, at each end. Why would identical 
gravity be repelled by its own source stuff to attract other stuff? 
Stuff’s gravity probably ought to repel all stuff, because that’s what 
gravitational monopoles would do.
The force reaches across huge expanses to pull stuff together. It isn’t 
just there at other stuffs, it gets there. And it has to keep getting 
there to stay there.
Forces aren’t waves, but these forces piggyback on lightspeed spacetime 
waves.
Now, if one stuff’s force reaches other stuff, but other stuff’s force 
fails to arrive from the other side, the whole gravity may fail! Or 
maybe the result would be half-gravity.
I would expect standing waves to appear at least somewhere amongst all 
the stuff. There should be something special at the nodes. Something 
like universes, with their own stuff and waves and nodes, and so it 
never ends.
No gravity at all can be transported across standing waves to other 
stuff where it needs to be! There will be not-gravity in that situation. 
I have a hunch - spacetime curvature IS standing waves.



‘Repulsive force’ gravity has one source - either the mass at one side, 
or curvaceous spacetime at the other. They’re in intimate contact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#897038

On 30/09/2026 12:09 pm, Old McDonald wrote:
> On 9/26/26 06:30, someone wrote:
>> Right, a bunch of verbiage without some kind of analytical support is 
>> a vacuum in and of itself.
>>
>> Consulting AI (again):
>>
>> The Schwarzschild Radius and Density: To turn any mass (\[M\]) into a 
>> black hole, you must compress it into a sphere smaller than its event 
>> horizon, known as the Schwarzschild radius R_s. The formula 
>> is: 2GM/c^2 (where G is the gravitational constant and c is the speed 
>> of light. Because volume grows much faster than radius (\(V 
>> \proportional to R^3\)), larger black holes actually require much less 
>> density to form than smaller ones. While a stellar-mass black hole is 
>> unimaginably dense, a supermassive black hole can have a density lower 
>> than water. If a black hole is large enough—say, the size of the 
>> observable universe—its required density drops to nearly nothing.Â
>>
>> The Critical Density of the Universe: Cosmologists measure the density 
>> of the universe to see if it is "flat," meaning space isn't warped on 
>> a cosmic scale. This is called the critical density, rho _c, 
>> calculated using the Hubble constant H: rho_c=3H^2/(8.pi G). When you 
>> plug in the observed numbers for our universe, this critical density 
>> is incredibly low—about 10^{-26} kg/m^3, which is equivalent to 
>> roughly six hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space.
>>
>> The Perfect Match: If you take the radius of the observable universe 
>> (the Hubble radius,R_H = c/H, and calculate how much total mass M is 
>> inside it based on that critical density, an amazing mathematical 
>> cancellation happens. If you solve for the Schwarzschild radius of 
>> that total cosmic mass, the horizon radius of the universe perfectly 
>> equals its Schwarzschild radius R_H = R_s, making the thesis of a 
>> universe within a universe quite remarkable.
> 
> That was more satisfying.
> I have two theories, one a load of verbiage with analytical support. 
> Randomly nested Penrose tile universes could be in there.
> Both will annoy Bill Sloman.

Incoherent babble is a waste of bandwidth, but we get a lot of it here 
and learn to ignore it

<snipped the incoherent babble>.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896903

On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:
> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The universe 
> mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a black hole, 
> which offers a rational explanation for why it is accelerating outwards.

Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape a 
black hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896909

On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
> On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:
>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The 
>> universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a 
>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is 
>> accelerating outwards.
> 
> Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape a 
> black hole.
LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a 
distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in 
their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896913

On 9/20/26 00:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
>> On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:
>>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The 
>>> universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a 
>>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is 
>>> accelerating outwards.
>>
>> Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape 
>> a black hole.
> LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a 
> distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in 
> their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.

Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.
So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole. But it 
prevents everything ELSE from escaping.
We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896921

Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design:
^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please get a real name.                   Please do not do that again.

> On 9/20/26 00:21, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 20/09/2026 10:19 am, Old McDonald wrote:
>>> On 9/19/26 10:15, someone wrote:
>>>> The universe is a randomly nested hierarchy of black holes. The 
>>>> universe mankind is most familiar with is theorized to be inside a 
>>>> black hole, which offers a rational explanation for why it is 
>>>> accelerating outwards.
>>>
>>> Exactly. They never meld because nothing, not even gravity, can escape 
>>> a black hole.
>> LIGO has recorded a couple of black fusions. Gravity is best seen as a 

                                      ^hole

>> distortion of space time, and black holes clearly do distort space in 
>> their immediate vicinity. It is called gravitational lensing.

Pseudoscientific nonsense.  Instead:

_In general relativity_, the theory that predicts and describes black
holes, _gravitation_ is understood as _a consequence of_ _the curvature
of_ _spacetime_, and black holes _are_ curved _spacetimes_.  See below.
> Okay, a distortion, that spreads at the same speed as light.

As light in vacuum, in a sense, yes.

> So gravity shouldn't prevent gravity from escaping a black hole.

Your entire idea of _gravitation_ being an object instead of an effect
is wrong from the outset.  (It is already wrong in Newton's theory of
gravitation.)

> But it prevents everything ELSE from escaping.

Not gravitation does that, but the curvature of spacetime.  All possible
futures of everything inside a black hole lie inside that black hole; no
spacetime geodesics lead out of it (into our universe):

My public YouTube playlist "Black holes"
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41EYJuJ5YuBtZkOB_ACHTuygBDPK28ix>

> We're getting close to reactionless anti-propulsion here, I think.

Nonsense.

F'up2 sci.physics

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#896925

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> Old McDonald wrote in sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please get a real name.                   Please do not do that again.

Please stop being such an interminably petulant fuss-budget.
My toddler is more temperamentally stable than you are,
"Pointy Ears."


> Pseudoscientific nonsense.

The hell you say.


> Nonsense.
> 
> F'up2 sci.physics

Powerless temper tantrum defeated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web