Chandra has observed a stellar-mass object, which the Chandra team interprets to be a black hole, that mysteriously is ejecting more matter in a massive wind than can be explained by accretion. Moreover, this wind is ejected in a broad orientation at nearly three percent the speed of light, rather than concentrated in jets oriented solely along the poles \u2013 which is typically explained via a magnetic acceleration mechanism. Finally, astronomers note that this condition apparently is short-lived, as only two months earlier no such wind was observed from this object.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.physorg.com\/news\/2012-02-chandra-fastest-stellar-mass-black-hole.html How is this observation related to superwave theory, where cosmic ray ejections propagate throughout the galaxy? Is this instead not a separate phenomenon that can explain the growth of galaxies from within? Recent observations already noted suggest that star clusters harbor a variety of star types, including \u2018young\u2019 hot stars. Is this not further evidence in support of this growth model?<\/p>\n And does Subquantum Kinectics offer any explanation of how this fast-moving gas might be eventually slowed, allowing it to condense into new stars? Numerous tails have been observed from moving stars and galaxies. Is there any friction mechanism over long distances that would explain this phenomenon? Could this not be an explanation of how these tails are formed? Responses to your many questions: <\/strong><\/p>\n Is there any other possible explanation for the source of this ejected material, other than from within the black hole itself? \u00a0 If not, would this not kill the notion of the possible existence of black hole singularities?<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em>First,\u00a0this object IGR J17091-3624 is not a black hole, as Chandra astronomers are surmising, and it is very doubtful that this relativistic wind is being powered by any kind of matter infall to this X-ray source. \u00a0As explained in the previous posting, it is impossible for black holes to form in nature. \u00a0They only form in the minds of physicists and astronomers, a point noted by MIT physics professor Phillip Morrison in his essay “Black Holes of the Mind<\/em>.” \u00a0Perhaps the black hole problem could be solved if the unfortunate victims of this idea were to volunteer themselves to sessions of deep psychotherapy. \u00a0I know of one physics professor at Portland State University who had confessed to me during a lecture coffee hour that he suffered from recurring nightmares of a mini black hole passing through his bedroom while he slept and swallowing him up. \u00a0(True story.) \u00a0Indeed, physicists would sleep easier if they revised their thinking on this subject and read Subquantum Kinetics<\/em>.<\/p>\n The matter that forms the relativistic wind that is blowing from this source most likely comes from the source itself, not from any hypothetical accretion disc theorized to surround this source. \u00a0First, understand that astronomers have not seen any accretion disc around this source; they just assume that it must be there to save themselves the embarrassment of admitting that standard theory cannot explain the immense outpouring of matter and energy from this source. \u00a0That is,\u00a0they know of no other way (within the confines of standard physics) that this source could be powering itself other than through matter infall from\u00a0an accretion disc.<\/p>\n Given that this source expels gas in all directions at a velocity of ~ 3 percent of the speed of light with a mass loss rate of ~5 X 10-8<\/sup> Msolar<\/sub>\/year, we may conclude that any accretion disc, if it were there, would be quickly swept away, and certainly this wind would prevent any matter from falling inward. \u00a0So this leaves astronomers with the embarrassing question of explaining how this source powers its impressive mass outflow. \u00a0In terms of wind kinetic energy, this source expels gas with a kinetic energy force similar to that of a Wolf-Rayet star producing a planetary nebula. \u00a0Although the mass loss rate is theorized to be less than that of a Wolf-Rayet star (which is ~ 10-6<\/sup> to 10-5 <\/sup>Msolar<\/sub>\/year), its gas velocity is ~10 to 20 times greater. \u00a0Hence figuring the v2<\/sup> difference, we conclude that the wind kinetic energy is of comparable magnitude. \u00a0Also in terms of its luminosity, IGR J17091-3624 has an X-ray luminosity comparable to the X-ray luminosity of a Wolf-Rayet star. \u00a0Considering that a Wolf-Rayet star does a fairly good job of clearing gas and dust out from its immediate vicinity, we may presume the same for this source. \u00a0So, in my opinion things look fairly dismal for interpretating IGR J17091-3624 to be a\u00a0black hole singularity.<\/p>\n Would not the cyclic nature of this widespread ejection surrounding a black hole preclude any explanation of an accumulator effect, whereby accreted material could somehow be temporarily stored before being ejected in short-term bursts?<\/em><\/p>\n Yes, if this is one of a series of outbursts we are witnessing, it is unlikely that the quiescent period would last sufficiently long to allow such\u00a0a source to accumulate a sufficient quantity of gas and dust to initiate a subsequent outburst.<\/p>\n Must not the observation that up to 95 percent of the ejected material does not originate from the accreted gas, pose a severe problem for astronomers to postulate a mechanism for this ejection?<\/em><\/p>\n No, you’re misunderstanding their 95% estimate. \u00a0The Chandra team, which surmises that an accretion disc must be present around the source, estimates that 95% of the disc’s matter is being expelled, with the implied assumption that the other 5% is being accreted. \u00a0To be realistic, if the wind is strong enough the expel 95% of a disc’s matter (assuming that it were there), it is most likely going to\u00a0expel 100% of the matter of the presumed disc, leaving pitifully little for accretion. \u00a0So, we are forced to conclude that this matter is not coming from an accretion disc, but from the source itself. \u00a0This immediately requires us to trash the black hole theory because matter cannot come out of a black hole; it can only fall in. \u00a0A more likely explanation for\u00a0IGR J17091-3624 is that it’s a mother star and that the matter being expelled and energy being radiated from this source is due to matter and energy being continually created in its interior.<\/p>\n How is this observation related to superwave theory, where cosmic ray ejections propagate throughout the galaxy? <\/em><\/p>\n Radio synchrotron emission has been detected from the vicinity of\u00a0IGR J17091-3624, which suggests that this source is emitting high energy cosmic ray electrons. \u00a0So in this regard it would be engaging in cosmic ray activity similar to that seen in active galactic nuclei, but on a smaller scale. \u00a0Just as active galactic nuclei go through an active phase, followed by a quiescent phase, so too, this source is believed to engage in recurrent outbursts. \u00a0Also the supermassive nuclei of active galaxies such as Seyfert galaxies are observed to expel gas at similarly high velocities. \u00a0It is unlikely that this source would produce anything close to a superwave since its cosmic ray power output would be far smaller. \u00a0Hopefully, with further future observation, astronomers will be able to come up with an estimate of the cosmic ray flux coming from this source.<\/p>\n Is this instead not a separate phenomenon that can explain the growth of galaxies from within? \u00a0Recent observations already noted suggest that star clusters harbor a variety of star types, including \u2018young\u2019 hot stars. \u00a0Is this not further evidence in support of this growth model?<\/em><\/p>\n Yes, if we interpret the gas being expelled from this source as evidence that matter has been newly created, this would support the suggestion of subquantum kinetics that stellar core mother stars such as this continually create matter and energy in their interiors. \u00a0Much of this matter would be expelled, but the remainder heavier nuclei would be retained by the source leading to a gradual mass growth.<\/p>\n And does Subquantum Kinectics offer any explanation of how this fast-moving gas might be eventually slowed, allowing it to condense into new stars? Numerous tails have been observed from moving stars and galaxies. \u00a0Is there any friction mechanism over long distances that would explain this phenomenon? \u00a0Could this not be an explanation of how these tails are formed?<\/em><\/p>\n As the gas leaves the source it should slow down and attain cooler temperatures, eventually coming to a stop due to interaction with the interstellar medium and magnetic fields. \u00a0Perhaps future observations will reveal that gas has accumulated in the immediate vicinity of this source.<\/p>\n Paul LaViolette, \u00a0February 23, 2012<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chandra has observed a stellar-mass object, which the Chandra team interprets to be a black hole, that mysteriously is ejecting more matter in a massive wind than can be explained by accretion. Moreover, this wind is ejected in a broad orientation at nearly three percent the speed of light, rather \u2026 Continue reading
\n<\/a>
\nIs there any other possible explanation for the source of this ejected material, other than from within the black hole itself? \u00a0 If not, would this not kill the notion of the possible existence of black hole singularities? Would not the cyclic nature of this widespread ejection surrounding a black hole preclude any explanation of an accumulator effect, whereby accreted material could somehow be temporarily stored before being ejected in short-term bursts? And must not the observation that up to 95 percent of the ejected material does not originate from the accreted gas, pose a severe problem for astronomers to postulate a mechanism for this ejection?<\/p>\n
\n————————————–<\/p>\n