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

Groups > sci.physics > #557169 > unrolled thread

Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 09:33 +0000
    Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 03:40 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 12:30 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 04:47 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 05:06 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:04 -0600
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 05:02 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 13:35 +0000
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 06:01 -0800
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:37 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:17 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:30 -0800
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 15:16 -0500
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:56 -0600
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:00 -0600
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:08 -0800
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:15 +0100
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:26 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:51 +0100
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:13 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:13 +0100
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:22 +0000
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:53 +0100
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:07 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:26 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 18:47 +0100
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 11:56 -0600
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:01 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 19:06 +0100
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:16 +0000
                    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 19:39 +0100
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:09 +0100
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:18 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 18:22 +0100
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-27 10:55 -0800
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 19:52 -0500
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 10:09 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 10:48 -0500
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-28 11:59 +1100
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 10:05 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:39 +0100
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:59 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:01 -0600
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:01 -0600
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:34 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 14:10 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#557232

7 wrote:

> […] at least it is possible to say the universe may be trillions of years
> old

It is also possible to say that the Moon may consist of green cheese; that 
does not make it any less nonsensical.

*Our* universe cannot be “trillions of years old”.  There was no(t the same) 
time before the Planck epoch, which we know, to great precision now, must 
have happened about 13.799 billion years ago.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#557235

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> […] at least it is possible to say the universe may be trillions of years
>> old
> 
> It is also possible to say that the Moon may consist of green cheese; that
> does not make it any less nonsensical.
> 
> *Our* universe cannot be “trillions of years old”.  There was no(t the
> same) time before the Planck epoch, which we know, to great precision now,
> must have happened about 13.799 billion years ago.

It seems you can't read and are picking items out of context like some 
giant universal trolling pricccck.

Read the original post and pick out the point where the conversation
goes from our universe to a much bigger universe:




> 7
> The most important detail about that story is that
> our universe could also have been born in the same
> way. As stated before, our universe was born about
> 14 billion years ago with a merger/collision
> of two gigantic black holes. The material that
> leaked out during that collision makes this universe.
> 
> It didn't come into existence spontaneously
> by any quantum fluctuation at the time big bang started.
> --------------
> 
> All this does is move the bar back. Where did these two black holes come
> from?  What started THEIR universe?


That is a very good question - but at least it is possible
to say the universe may be trillions of years old filled with
immense black holes and then whatever we try to do to analyse it,
it is beyond our tools to go figure out where the original black
holes came from, or how vast the entire universe is.

14 billion light years is only long enough to figure out the
immediate local neighbourhood due to creation. The bigger
picture is exceptionally hard to find out.

May be extremely long / very long wave radio could see
further than the 14 billion light year area
outside our universe, but somehow I doubt it.
If we condense out of a gamma ray burst, there would
be immense amount of gas and rubble to block out all radiation
at the periphery of this universe in all directions.

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

#557243

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> […] at least it is possible to say the universe may be trillions of
>>> [years
>>> old
>> It is also possible to say that the Moon may consist of green cheese;
>> that does not make it any less nonsensical.
>> 
>> *Our* universe cannot be “trillions of years old”.  There was no(t the
>> same) time before the Planck epoch, which we know, to great precision
>> now, must have happened about 13.799 billion years ago.
> 
> It seems you can't read and are picking items out of context like some
> giant universal trolling pricccck.

No, I am just not considering (your) *more* *obvious* nonsense.
 
> […] the conversation goes from our universe to a much bigger universe: […]

Which is based on pure fantasy, so I took the liberty of ignoring it.
 

PointedEars
-- 
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
   does it take to change a light bulb?  
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#557246

Perhaps someone here doesn't know
the meaning of the word "universe".
It means "everything that is".

There are no bigger or smaller universes.
Physics is illogical nonsense these days.

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

#557252

John says
Physics is illogical nonsense these days. 
--------------

John and his butt buddy, BJ, long to return to the good old daze. The days when physchic mediums would spin ectoplasma or of their nose while a tambourine played by itself in midair.

This newfangled physics and quantum mechanics just don't make sense to them. Ghosts, ESP, and sceances don't need any stinking physics!


Headlines in the paper the day after the phychic midget escaped from police custody: SMALL MEDIUM AT LARGE!

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

#557259

john wrote:

> Perhaps someone here doesn't know
> the meaning of the word "universe".
> It means "everything that is".

Perhaps someone here is not up-to-date instead.  You are referring to a 
classical, laymen definition.

In cosmology a multiverse filled with universes, including ours, is 
considered a theoretical possibility nowadays.  (Not that I want to imply 
that the anonymous’s nonsense would refer to that.)
 
> There are no bigger or smaller universes.

You do not know that, and it is possible that we can never know that.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse>

“THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS (Part 4/4): Universe or Multiverse?”
Discovery Science, 2015.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTrU-0jEpgY>

“Multiverse – One Universe or Many?”. World Science Festival, 2014.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SseP0_h_DOQ>

> Physics is illogical nonsense these days.

Only to the ignorant.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#557266

On 2/27/2016 11:07 AM, john wrote:
> Perhaps someone here doesn't know
> the meaning of the word "universe".
> It means "everything that is".

That's YOUR meaning. Maybe you should check out what a physicist means 
by the word.

>
> There are no bigger or smaller universes.
> Physics is illogical nonsense these days.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#557267

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> […] at least it is possible to say the universe may be trillions of
>>>> [years
>>>> old
>>> It is also possible to say that the Moon may consist of green cheese;
>>> that does not make it any less nonsensical.
>>> 
>>> *Our* universe cannot be “trillions of years old”.  There was no(t the
>>> same) time before the Planck epoch, which we know, to great precision
>>> now, must have happened about 13.799 billion years ago.
>> 
>> It seems you can't read and are picking items out of context like some
>> giant universal trolling pricccck.
> 
> No, I am just not considering (your) *more* *obvious* nonsense.
>  
>> […] the conversation goes from our universe to a much bigger universe:
>> [[…]
> 
> Which is based on pure fantasy, so I took the liberty of ignoring it.


You should have asserted your beliefs earlier so that those are
dismissed first instead of your arrogance.

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

#557270

7 wrote:

> You should have asserted your beliefs earlier so that those are
> dismissed first instead of your arrogance.

Contrary to yours, my statements are not based on belief; I have facts to 
support them.  Your ignoring and ridiculing the evidence that falsifies your 
ideas does not make the evidence go away.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#557273

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> You should have asserted your beliefs earlier so that those are
>> dismissed first instead of your arrogance.
> 
> Contrary to yours, my statements are not based on belief; I have facts to
> support them.  Your ignoring and ridiculing the evidence that falsifies
> your ideas does not make the evidence go away.

Sounds like you are ascending towards omnipotence.
Have fun when you get there. :)

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

#557280

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> You should have asserted your beliefs earlier so that those are
>>> dismissed first instead of your arrogance.
>> Contrary to yours, my statements are not based on belief; I have facts to
>> support them.  Your ignoring and ridiculing the evidence that falsifies
>> your ideas does not make the evidence go away.
> 
> Sounds like you are ascending towards omnipotence.

It does not require omnipotence to know the facts, just research.

> Have fun when you get there. :)

I probably will.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#557231

7 wrote:

> As I was saying before, when black holes try to merge,

Black holes do not “try to” merge; either they merge or they do not.  They 
do not have will, but just have to follow laws of nature.  Saying that black 
holes try to merge is as nonsensical as saying that a ball dropped tries to 
fall down.

> the net gravity in the middle between the two black holes fall off 
> to zero […]

How did you get that idea?


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#557234

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:


>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to merge,
> 
> Black holes do not “try to” merge; either they merge or they do not.  They
> do not have will, but just have to follow laws of nature.  Saying that
> black holes try to merge is as nonsensical as saying that a ball dropped
> tries to fall down.

Well if it didn't try, it couldn't have fallen.

Ergo your shiiite logic is full of black holes.


>> the net gravity in the middle between the two black holes fall off
>> to zero […]
> 
> How did you get that idea?

You know I did some thought experiments with a planets
and figured the centre of a planet has zero gravity.
That was on top of being taught this in physics classes
deriving formula for the relation which is a linear decay function.

Ergo black hole gravity collapses in the same way when
black holes are trying to merge. So says elementary physics.

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

#557251

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to merge,
>> Black holes do not “try to” merge; either they merge or they do not. 
>> They do not have will, but just have to follow laws of nature.  Saying
>> that black holes try to merge is as nonsensical as saying that a ball
>> dropped tries to fall down.
> 
> Well if it didn't try, it couldn't have fallen.

Incorrect.

It falls according to Newton’s laws of motion and of universal gravitation 
because the force of gravity caused by its mass and the mass of the body it 
is falling towards pulls on it (and the body it is falling towards; which 
equally falls towards the ball, but we can approximate and neglect that if 
its mass is much greater than that of the ball).

It falls according to general relativity because one of the geodesics of the 
spacetime that is curved by the energy–momentum of both it and of the body 
it is falling towards (again, actually they fall towards each other) then 
ends in or near the center of mass of that body, and there is *no* force 
that *prevents* the ball from having a spacetime trajectory that follows 
that geodesic.

So nothing is tried there at all by anything.  The laws of nature, as we 
discern them, just are.  Ascribing a will of trying to an inanimate object 
like a black hole or a ball, that way lies madness.
 
> Ergo your shiiite logic is full of black holes.

Ex falso quodlibet.  (You should also be more careful.  “Shiiite” can be 
easily misread and misunderstood to refer to religion.)

>>> the net gravity in the middle between the two black holes fall off
>>> to zero […]
>> 
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> You know I did some thought experiments with a planets
> and figured the centre of a planet has zero gravity.

Imprecise at best.  There is no *net* force on a test mass in the center *of 
mass* of a planet because the gravitational forces pulling from all sides 
*cancel each other out*.  However, as I just stated, there is still gravity 
there, and in GR terms the spacetime curvature reaches a local maximum 
there.

> That was on top of being taught this in physics classes
> deriving formula for the relation which is a linear decay function.

Not even wrong.

> Ergo black hole gravity collapses in the same way when
> black holes are trying to merge.

Black holes are based on general relativity, not Newtonian gravity, so 
saying that “black holes gravity collapses” is *at least* referring to an 
ill-defined concept.

What actually happens is that the curvature of spacetime increases towards 
the singularity of the black hole where it approaches positive infinity.  
That means that as black holes merge, the spacetime curvatures of the black 
holes *add up*.  Given that the curvature is positive in and around both 
black holes, how could it become zero between them as they get closer 
together and finally merge?

> So says elementary physics.

No, it does not.  Elementary mathematics, on the other hand, says that you 
are wrong because 1 + 1 > 0.

Black holes are a topic of general relativity: F'up2 sci.physics.relativity.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#557289

"Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>"7" <7@enemygadgets.com> wrotewrote:
>
The 7-dude aimed one of his 7 enema gadgets
at the schmuck with the pointed ears and wrote:
>> Ergo your shiiite logic is full of black holes.
>
The Lamebrained Looney Lahn re-turded with:
> You should also be more careful.  "Shiiite" can be
> easily misread and misunderstood to refer to religion.)
>
hanso wrote:
"misread and misunderstood".. just like your Hitler was?
ROTFLMAO.... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

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

#557433

On 27/02/2016 4:33 AM, 7 wrote:
> Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/
>
>
> The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
> 0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.
>
> To me this is no surprise at all.
>
> As I was saying before, when black holes try to
> merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
> black holes fall off to zero allowing material
> trapped in it to escape at a fantastic rate
> (estimated at 1 sun per second for this particular event)
> before the black holes merge and close this window.

Yes, nobody disputes that the black hole merger releases a vast amount 
of energy, it's 3 solar masses worth of energy in fact. However, what's 
different here is what form the energy takes. In this case, all of that 
energy comes out as gravitational energy, not electromagnetic energy.

> Proof that material easily escapes black holes
> during a merger is provided by double signal of
> gravitational waves and massive gamma ray bursts
> happening at the same time.
>
> If these double events occur most of the time
> then it is absolute proof that black hole
> mergers release vast amount of matter in the
> form of gamma rays. This gamma ray would
> probably condense to form matter which
> linger near the black hole.

How do you expect the gamma rays turn into matter? Matter doesn't just 
happen, when you dump a bunch of energy into an area.

> The most important detail about that story is that
> our universe could also have been born in the same
> way. As stated before, our universe was born about
> 14 billion years ago with a merger/collision
> of two gigantic black holes. The material that
> leaked out during that collision makes this universe.

Chances are likely that we're are already inside a black hole, no need 
for material to leak out, the special conditions inside a black hole can 
lead to matter creation. It's not just gamma rays. It's energy in all of 
its forms that create matter.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#557529

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 27/02/2016 4:33 AM, 7 wrote:
>> Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/
>>
>>
>> The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
>> 0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.
>>
>> To me this is no surprise at all.
>>
>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to
>> merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
>> black holes fall off to zero allowing material
>> trapped in it to escape at a fantastic rate
>> (estimated at 1 sun per second for this particular event)
>> before the black holes merge and close this window.
> 
> Yes, nobody disputes that the black hole merger releases a vast amount
> of energy, it's 3 solar masses worth of energy in fact. However, what's
> different here is what form the energy takes. In this case, all of that
> energy comes out as gravitational energy, not electromagnetic energy.

The contradiction is that then there is no gamma ray burst.
 
>> Proof that material easily escapes black holes
>> during a merger is provided by double signal of
>> gravitational waves and massive gamma ray bursts
>> happening at the same time.
>>
>> If these double events occur most of the time
>> then it is absolute proof that black hole
>> mergers release vast amount of matter in the
>> form of gamma rays. This gamma ray would
>> probably condense to form matter which
>> linger near the black hole.
> 
> How do you expect the gamma rays turn into matter? Matter doesn't just
> happen, when you dump a bunch of energy into an area.

Eeek! Run away! :)

What do you think happens in a particle accelerator all day?


>> The most important detail about that story is that
>> our universe could also have been born in the same
>> way. As stated before, our universe was born about
>> 14 billion years ago with a merger/collision
>> of two gigantic black holes. The material that
>> leaked out during that collision makes this universe.
> 
> Chances are likely that we're are already inside a black hole, no need
> for material to leak out, the special conditions inside a black hole can
> lead to matter creation. It's not just gamma rays. It's energy in all of
> its forms that create matter.
> 
> Yousuf Khan

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

#557849

On 28/02/2016 5:09 AM, 7 wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2016 4:33 AM, 7 wrote:
>>> Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/
>>>
>>>
>>> The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
>>> 0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.
>>>
>>> To me this is no surprise at all.
>>>
>>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to
>>> merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
>>> black holes fall off to zero allowing material
>>> trapped in it to escape at a fantastic rate
>>> (estimated at 1 sun per second for this particular event)
>>> before the black holes merge and close this window.
>>
>> Yes, nobody disputes that the black hole merger releases a vast amount
>> of energy, it's 3 solar masses worth of energy in fact. However, what's
>> different here is what form the energy takes. In this case, all of that
>> energy comes out as gravitational energy, not electromagnetic energy.
>
> The contradiction is that then there is no gamma ray burst.

But there was a small gamma ray burst, so there is a slight deviation 
from theory. So maybe instead of the energy being released 100% in 
gravity waves, it might have only been 99% in gravity, and 1% in 
electromagnetic. So why that 1% occurred needs to explained.

>>> If these double events occur most of the time
>>> then it is absolute proof that black hole
>>> mergers release vast amount of matter in the
>>> form of gamma rays. This gamma ray would
>>> probably condense to form matter which
>>> linger near the black hole.
>>
>> How do you expect the gamma rays turn into matter? Matter doesn't just
>> happen, when you dump a bunch of energy into an area.
>
> Eeek! Run away! :)
>
> What do you think happens in a particle accelerator all day?

Certainly not that! In particle accelerators they crash matter into 
matter, like protons with protons, or electrons with electrons. 
Sometimes they'll crash matter into antimatter, but they never use 
photons in an accelerator. Photons may be one of the final products 
coming out of a crash, but photons are never the inputs.

	Yousuf Khan

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

#557439

On 27/02/2016 8:33 PM, 7 wrote:
> Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/
>
>
> The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
> 0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.
>
> To me this is no surprise at all.
>
> As I was saying before, when black holes try to
> merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
> black holes fall off to zero

You can find a point somewhere on the line joining their centres where 
gravity is zero, but as soon as you move off that line, non-zero gravity 
is again present.

In any case, the field at the centre of a black hole is presumably zero 
as well, and that doesn't result in the emission of matter.

Your analysis is flawed.

Sylvia.

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

#557527

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 27/02/2016 8:33 PM, 7 wrote:
>> Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/
>>
>>
>> The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
>> 0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.
>>
>> To me this is no surprise at all.
>>
>> As I was saying before, when black holes try to
>> merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
>> black holes fall off to zero
> 
> You can find a point somewhere on the line joining their centres where
> gravity is zero, but as soon as you move off that line, non-zero gravity
> is again present.

Great news for photons in a gamma ray burst. It can leave.

> In any case, the field at the centre of a black hole is presumably zero
> as well, and that doesn't result in the emission of matter.

A half empty glass is also half full.

Emit to where exactly?

> Your analysis is flawed.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web