Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

chat · 2004-05-25 17:58:26

Hi all.
I couldn't resist posting on this topic of confusion.
This is always a great topic for thought.

What if a simpler solution to singularity exists.

This one for example.

A black hole is simply matter without space.
Any black hole that has gravity waves is showing that it is doing something not accounted for.

1. it has not formed a total singularity, because nothing can escape a singularity (including the gravity waves).
Or do gravity waves break the physical laws of the universe? Bet they don't.

2. the matter/time is so compacted that it alters time in a strange way.
We see a black hole that never quite reaches singularity and continues to expel gravity waves, due to our time perspective.
The singularity itself slows time from happening, before the singularity can become infinite in smallness.
The smaller the singularity gets, the slower the time passes for it.

Probably a good reason for the original big bang, gravity eventually does overcome space/time itself, then nothing exists to stop the explosion of everything.

Just some food for thought

Palomar · 2004-05-26 11:54:25

Chat: Hi all.
I couldn't resist posting

*Hi Chat; I'm glad.

Any black hole that has gravity waves is showing that it is doing something not accounted for.
1. it has not formed a total singularity, because nothing can escape a singularity (including the gravity waves).

*Whoa. I see your point. Why didn't I think of that? :hm: :laugh:

We see a black hole that never quite reaches singularity and continues to expel gravity waves, due to our time perspective.
The singularity itself slows time from happening, before the singularity can become infinite in smallness.
The smaller the singularity gets, the slower the time passes for it.
Just some food for thought

*Food for thought indeed! I'll have to relocate the analogy a scientist used in a book I'm reading, pertaining to the time/singularity issue you raise, Chat. If I can find it again, I'll post it.

--Cindy

chat · 2004-05-29 03:08:35

ecrasez,

It always amazes me how those little details like gravity waves escaping from black holes are overlooked.

With all the big brains working on them, you would think that someone would question how something can escape that is produced from the black hole.

It shows one thing for sure, that our understanding of black hole singularity needs more work.

I have a feeling that the compression of time inside a black hole, is the answer as to why we see gravity emanate from them.

Seems the simplest way for black holes to exist and still have gravity.

Time is probably a final barrier for black holes collapsing.

Dook · 2004-05-29 20:45:26

About black holes, if an object caught within the event horizon accelerates to the speed of light and infinite mass then wouldn't it have a mass equal to the black hole itself? Or, if not, then enough mass to pull on the black hole as the two combine? But we don't see black holes wiggling. Also, if this is correct then why doesn't a particle of light have infinite mass?

Another question that has always bothered me. Matter is energy and vice versa and it is easy to convert matter to energy, just burn a wood log in your fireplace, but there is no way, that I know of, to change energy into matter. How much would you have to compress light and heat radiation to get it to form a wood log?

correction 30 May: I had the words energy and matter switched in bottom paragraph.

Euler · 2004-05-29 22:20:30

About black holes, if an object caught within the event horizon accelerates to the speed of light and infinite mass then wouldn't it have a mass equal to the black hole itself? Or, if not, then enough mass to pull on the black hole as the two combine? But we don't see black holes wiggling. Also, if this is correct then why doesn't a particle of light have infinite mass?

The laws of physics that apply inside the event horizon of a black hole are not well understood. Light particles do not have infinite mass because their rest mass is zero. Because photons travel at the speed of light, they do have some apparent mass. How much mass they have depends on their energy (frequency).

Matter is energy and vice versa and it is easy to convert matter to energy...but there is no way, that I know of, to change matter into energy.

:hm:

How much would you have to compress light and heat radiation to get it to form a wood log?

The burning wood log is not a good example of mass to energy conversion. The energy in that reaction comes from the breaking of chemical bonds and no appreciable amount of mater is destroyed, it is just reorganized. The ratio of mass to energy conversion is Energy= Mass*speed of light^2, which means that a small amount of mass is equal to a very large amount of energy. For the last few years, physicist have been able to convert energy into small amounts of matter in particle accelerators. When particles of matter are created in this way, an equal number of antimatter particles are also created. If an antimatter particle collides with an equivalent particle of normal matter, they will annihilate each other, releasing the same amount of energy that was needed to create them.

Palomar · 2004-05-31 07:44:00

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 04]Virtual observatory finds 30 previously undiscovered black holes

*European team making use of the "Astrophysical Virtual Observatory." Not sure I've heard of that before (AVO).

Supermassive black holes which previously went undetected due to being "masked" behind dust clouds. They're speculating astronomers may have underestimated the number of supermassive black holes by "as much as a factor of five."

Discusses dust torus, type 1 sources and type 2 sources.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-06-10 13:29:18

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s … l]Possibly youngest black hole ever observed?

***
Startled astronomers peered through an apparent crack in the expanding bubble from an exploded star to glimpse what may be the youngest black hole ever detected.

...Around 1983, the core of the star ran out of fuel and was no longer able to support itself against its own gravity. It began to collapse.

"This collapse is extremely fast, and the core collapses into a neutron star in about one second," Bietenholz explained. "It stops, at least momentarily at this point."

..."If the core winds up with less than about 1.4 times the mass of our Sun, it will remain stable as a neutron star," Bietenholz said. "If the core mass is larger, it will continue to collapse into a black hole, with this further collapse occurring in a fraction of a second."

...The outer layers of the star initially raced into space at more than 44 million mph (20,000 kilometers per second). The expansion continues but has slowed since.

"We'll be watching it over the coming years," said Michael Rupen of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, New Mexico. "First, we hope to find out whether it's a black hole or a neutron star. Next, whichever it is, it's going to give us a whole new view of how these things start and develop over time."

***

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-06-28 15:29:43

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h … d-boggling colossal black hole

*They've found a real monster of a black hole in a galaxy 12.7 billion light-years away, in Ursa Major (of which "The Big Dipper" is a part). Which means, of course, that it's 12.7 billion years old and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes yet discovered.

They're calling it a blazar "because it spews jets of radiation in roughly the direction of Earth."

This thing has about 10 billion times the mass of our Sun! It's big enough to hold 1,000 of our Solar Systems and weighs about as much as all the stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. My god!

A scientist in the article says he'd be surprised if there are many black holes as large and powerful as this one.

Wonders never cease.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-09-22 07:46:43

Yep, Tesla finally did get some recognition and got a unit of magnetism named after him.
The magnetars have what is thought to be the strongest magnetic fields in the universe. Atomic nuclei are deformed from the magnetic fields and light is polarized. The highest magnetic fields we can generate before the magnets rip themselves apart is about 25 telsa.
The issue of Science has several articles about pulsars, in fact and one concentrates on magentars. It turns out that the magnetic field of these things is so powerful that it basically grinds the magnetar to a halt in a few decades. At that point, the magnetar basically becomes a dead neutron star that we can't see. If that's true, then the observed ratio between visible magnetars and pulsars suggests that magentars are actually the more common of the two.
::EDIT:: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 0312.htm]A good article on magnetars.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010901.html]*Another little treasure from Astropix

...about magnetar candidates. :up: I recalled the previous discussion about magnetars in this thread.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-09-25 08:39:36

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … stronomers watch black hole "eat a meal"

*Galaxy NGC 3516 (in Ursa Major), approximately 100 million l/y away, "is thought to have" a supermassive black hole at its center -- between 10 and 50 million solar masses.

They watched a bundle of matter orbit the SMBH 4 times prior to being gobbled up.

"The material was approximately the same distance as our Earth is from the Sun, but instead of taking a year, it only took a quarter of a day, because of the massive gravity of the black hole."

-also-

"The scientists could calculate the mass of the black hole by plugging in the measurements for the energy of the light, its distance from the black hole, and the time it took to orbit the black hole -- a marriage of Einstein's general relativity and good old-fashioned Keplerian physics."

*Amazing. :up:

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-09-25 09:34:12

Yep, Tesla finally did get some recognition and got a unit of magnetism named after him.
The magnetars have what is thought to be the strongest magnetic fields in the universe. Atomic nuclei are deformed from the magnetic fields and light is polarized. The highest magnetic fields we can generate before the magnets rip themselves apart is about 25 telsa.
The issue of Science has several articles about pulsars, in fact and one concentrates on magentars. It turns out that the magnetic field of these things is so powerful that it basically grinds the magnetar to a halt in a few decades. At that point, the magnetar basically becomes a dead neutron star that we can't see. If that's true, then the observed ratio between visible magnetars and pulsars suggests that magentars are actually the more common of the two.
::EDIT:: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 0312.htm]A good article on magnetars.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010901.html]*Another little treasure from Astropix
...about magnetar candidates. :up: I recalled the previous discussion about magnetars in this thread.
--Cindy

*Do I love Astropix? Yep.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980903.html]More information ("-- a signal so strong that it saturated detectors on WIND and RXTE and triggered the safety mode automatic shut-off of the NEAR gamma-ray instrument!")

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980527.html]about magnetars

*Awesome critters.

--Cindy

P.S.: Check out article in post above this one; posted earlier today, recent black hole "news".

Palomar · 2004-10-27 05:38:58

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … 2]Gigantic Cosmic Corkscrew

*The tale of SS 433. Once called "the engima of the century" in a 1981 Sky & Telescope article.

--Cindy

::edit::

"We found that the actual speed varies between 24 percent to 28 percent of light speed, as opposed to staying constant," said Katherine Blundell, of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "Amazingly, the jets going in both directions change their speeds simultaneously, producing identical speeds in both directions at any given time"

Fascinating.

Palomar · 2004-11-05 12:07:58

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 112004]2nd black hole discovered at heart of our galaxy

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-11-10 09:16:39

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 2004]Black Holes or Galaxies: Which Came First?

*New study indicates it's the black hole which comes first. That's what a TV documentary I saw early last year suggested.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-11-10 09:29:11

The classic chicken or egg which came first.

If you believe that the big bang was that of a black hole exploding then that is the starting point but the question where did that black hole come? That would mean that one did not exist at some point in time.

If matter starts out evenly spread across all that we know as space. Then the question becomes one of what made it clump together to form all the heavenly bodies we now know?

Palomar · 2004-11-10 09:54:57

*SpaceNut: Thought you might be interested to read the "summary" I made about that TV documentary mentioned in my previous post. Am carrying the quote over from page 3 of this thread (sorry if perhaps you've read the entire thread -- and this -- already).

--Cindy

..a Discovery Channel television program...
The program was titled "Supermassive Black Holes." If you haven't seen it, here's the run-down (to the best of my ability):
*Every galaxy yet examined for a black hole has been found to have one at its center; apparently every galaxy has one at its center.
*Black holes are proportionate in size to its "host" galaxy.
*Scientists sought to determine the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" dilemma with regards to black holes and their "host" galaxies. Data to date leans in great favor to the certainty that black holes are formed first; that at the beginning of our universe gasses compressed to such a point, finally collapsing, that black holes formed from them. The gravity from the black holes begins to agitate the gases around them, superheating them (quasars). The black holes suck these gases in, the violence of the "feeding" and superheating of surrounding gases creating stars -- and hence galaxies. [::edit:: The documentary showed this process as a gentle explosion, like the upshoot of a geyser]. Jets of energy from a quasar can extend thousands of light-years into space; this energy pushes surrounding space away from the quasar/emerging galaxy.
*When the superheated gas is consumed from the quasar (which then is gone, of course), the black hole becomes dormant -- but not necessarily permanently dormant; an astronomer in Hawaii believes she has data showing that the black hole at the center of our galaxy has begun "feeding" again, albeit mildly -- gobbling up some stray, nearby gases and that it is nothing for us to be alarmed about; we are approximately 24,000 light years from the black hole.
*I've heard this item before: The Andromeda galaxy -- the galaxy nearest to us -- is moving toward us at 250,000 miles an hour. An astronomer has done extensive calculations: In roughly 3 billion years, Andromeda will collide with our galaxy; its black hole will merge with ours...and Earth and our companions in the Solar System will be toast from the intense radiation, stellar explosions, etc. According to his calculations, we're going out with a bang.
It was a spectacular program; I could watch and soak up stuff like this for hours. If you get a chance, do watch."
--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-11-10 10:30:30

Great stuff, had not read that far back on the thread.
We are getting closer every day to dating the universe by the light as seen though instruments such as Hubble and a few others. It would seem to me that since we are able to date the visible galaxies that we should also be able to date the black holes but I do not know how we could do so.

I guess the question I would have is how fast can matter form from an evenly spread out quantity into a black hole.
I would think that there would be some sort of in between state and that it would be of a very long time frame before condensing into them.

Palomar · 2004-11-13 21:01:13

::EDIT:: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 0312.htm]A good article on magnetars.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010901.html]*Another little treasure from Astropix
...about magnetar candidates. :up: I recalled the previous discussion about magnetars in this thread.
--Cindy
*Do I love Astropix? Yep.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980903.html]More information ("-- a signal so strong that it saturated detectors on WIND and RXTE and triggered the safety mode automatic shut-off of the NEAR gamma-ray instrument!")
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980527.html]about magnetars
*Awesome critters.
--Cindy
P.S.: Check out article in post above this one; posted earlier today, recent black hole "news".

http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/ma … tml]Mighty, Mighty Magnetars

*Am currently reading an article about magnetars in the special edition of Scientific American entitled The Secret Lives of Stars (last I checked, it's still for sale at magazine racks). I'm halfway through the article, so will share to this point for now.

Am bringing over the quotes of SBird and myself, with previous links to magnetar info.

Will summarize highlights of the article...I'm not quoting.

Awesome, stupendous critters with more data rolling in. In July 1986 astronomers gathered in Toulouse, France dubbed these phenomena (there were 3 sources detected by that time) "soft gamma repeaters" -- and the study of them took off from there, apparently (according to the article). It'd be another 7 years before an explanation was devised for these critters, in 1998.

Here goes:

*Magnetars have starquakes which can release seismic energy equivalent to a magnitude 21 earthquake. A fireball of plasma is then released, which gets trapped by the magnetic field.

*5 March 1979: Soviet spacecraft Venera 11 and 12 were in the inner Solar System, drifting along on an elliptical orbit. Radiation readouts stayed around 100 counts per second (nominal). At 10:51 Eastern Standard Time a gamma radiation pulse hit both probes. In a fraction of a millisecond the radiation level soared above 200,000 counts per second and swiftly went off-scale. Eleven seconds after that, gamma rays overpowered Helios 2 (NASA probe). The radiation wave reached Venus soon after and saturated the detector on the Pioneer Venus Orbiter. Seconds after that, Earth got hit.

*In 0.2 second as much energy as the Sun radiates in approximately 10,000 years was released.

*Also, it concentrated that energy in gamma rays as opposed to spreading it across the electromagnetic spectrum. That was our first-detected experience with a magnetar.

*After the initial hard hit more (but gentler, fainter) bursts of gamma rays were detected as coming from the same region of the sky.

*Magnetars only remain active for about 10,000 years. Article speculates there's perhaps millions of them in our galaxy.

*Again, the earthquake comparison: Article says these bursts are not only statistically similar to earthquakes but their energies have very similar mathematical distributions (don't ask me about math!, teehee).

*Article mentions self-organized criticality (which they define as a critical state during which a small perturbation can trigger a chain reaction; they cite avalanches as an example).

*Scientists think they've found answers (or "solutions") to magnetars' behavior and etc. via the continued study of radio pulsars, which of course is a different line of work. Perhaps most folks here know about the Crab Nebula's pulsar, one of the most famous. It's the result of a supernova which was observed in 1054 (I'm familiar with it and the date, but the following information is new to me too:) This pulsar rotates once every *33 milliseconds* (how in tarnation can anything spin that fast??), but is currently slowing down by approximately 1.3 millisecond per century. Scientists predict it'll eventually slow to the point where radio pulses will be undetectable. Almost every radio pulsar's spin-down rate has been measured. Article says a theory indicates that it depends on the strength of the star's magnetic field.

*Goes on to discuss another theory: The magnetic field is a left-over from before the star went supernova. All stars have weak magnetic fields, which can be amplified by the simple act of compression. They cite Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism: If a magnetized object shrinks by a factor of 2, its magnetic field becomes stronger by a factor of 4. A massive star's core collapses by 10 to the 5th power from its birth through formation into a neutron star -- thus, its magnetic field should become 10 to the 10th power stronger. This hypothesis can't be tested, however, because magnetic fields deep inside a star cannot be measured. And there's indications the Maxwell equation thing is only part of the story.

More later.

--Cindy

P.S.: Most of what I know about magnetars to-date is here in these posts and the links.

Palomar · 2004-11-19 06:51:54

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n041 … ]Utilizing polarized light to study black holes...

*Astronomer named Kishimoto at Univ of Edinburgh and an international team

have discovered that by studying polarised light from black holes they can focus much more closely on what exactly is going on around them.

Their findings are published in monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Studying black holes at the centre of galaxies is difficult. A huge amount of material is falling on to the centre in an active black hole system
...isolation of the light. They have looked at a small part of the light emitted from black holes - light that has been scattered as it passes through the clouds very nearby. This scattered light can cleverly be picked up by looking through a polaroid filter just like the lens of polaroid sunglasses, which essentially blocks the unwanted light from elsewhere in the galaxy. The scattered light is polarised so the light waves all line up in the same direction and can pass through the Polaroid filter, but light from the surrounding area which is not polarised is excluded by the filter.

*Also discusses a signal in observed light -- the "Balmer edge feature."

reveals properties of the material and will allow the team to carry out more detailed modelling of the temperature and density of the region near black holes than has been possible before now.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-11-22 21:15:27

Precocious]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15549]"Precocious" Supermassive Black Hole

*Formed less than a billion years after the Big Bang. Generates energy equivalent to 20 trillion Suns.

I can't comprehend that number, let alone that kind of energy. My god.

The existence of such massive black holes at this early epoch of the Universe challenges theories of the formation of galaxies and supermassive black holes.

And evidence of yet another similar SMBH (early-epoch) has been discovered.

"These two results seem to indicate that the way supermassive black holes produce X-rays has remained essentially the same from a very early date in the Universe," said Schwartz. "This implies that the central black hole engine in a massive galaxy was formed very soon after the Big Bang."

However, they share a very similar X-ray spectra to older SMBH's. Apparently that's what has taken the scientists by surprise the most (unless I'm reading this wrong).

The remarkable similarity of the X-ray spectra of the young supermassive black holes to those of much older ones means that the supermassive black holes and their accretion disks were already in place less than a billion years after the Big Bang.

--Cindy

chat · 2004-11-23 05:27:32

SpaceNut,

Since this is the first big bang expansion of the universe, and when it is time for the big crunch it will be the first of those, not much point in asking where it started.

It will always be the first expansion and collapse no matter how many times it has happened.

Time itself is swept into the big black hole so nothing came before the first one.

The next expansion after this one will be the first again.

Its an awful concept for us humans to adopt.

The original matter came from the vacuum of empty space, a lack of energy probably has an ability to create energy that slowly accumulates.
(just my guess)

The real universe is probably full of universe bubbles that also have been here just once.

Palomar · 2004-11-23 09:03:54

Time itself is swept into the big black hole so nothing came before the first one.
The next expansion after this one will be the first again.
Its an awful concept for us humans to adopt.

*Not sure how to phrase this, but here goes: So then time is temporary and relative? There is no eternity?

Time in our universe is akin to time to us mortals: We didn't exist prior to birth and so of course knew nothing of before and when we die we cease to exist and so cannot know a future. (Not seeking a religious debate or dialogue here; am simply using an analogy I feel comfortable with, thanks).

The birth and death of this universe will be like our own birth and death.

Although other universes could be born and die alongside of this one, as goes with our fellow humans.

?

--Cindy

chat · 2004-11-23 15:10:38

ecrasez,

I think its more of a catch 22 for us mortals than a retrospect on what happens to us.
Life and death for us is set in stone, but it probably isn't.
As you say before birth what happened to us all.

The universe lasts forever but it doesn't, time lasts forever but it doesn't, the universe is infinite but it isn't.

Probably the way the entire universe works including us.

If we think of the universe as one balloon that blows up to a point, then deflates to its smallest size, then re inflates.
Time ,space ,energy and matter also inflate and deflate with the balloon.

Asking what was before the balloon equates to your (what before birth question).

Before the big balloon was a small balloon, before the small balloon was a big balloon.
Outside of the balloon doesn't exist, but it does, it simply has no time and space until you arrive at the next balloon.

No chickens or eggs need apply

Palomar · 2004-11-30 11:46:58

*Erm...okay Chat, whatever you say. :;): Thanks for answering.

-*-

I came across http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/ … shtml]this article , while searching Google for related stuff. Could have sworn I'd posted it or a similar one previously either in this thread or one of the old and long-since locked "New Discoveries" threads. :-\ Search proved futile. ::scratches head:: :hm:

Anyway, is a fascinating article about a "singing" black hole. Key of B Flat and 57 octaves below Middle C. Couldn't hear it if you wanted to. This note excites gasses, etc. :up: Also speculates on musical notes produced elsewhere in the universe (:edit: Am familiar with the "music of the spheres" as related to planets in our Solar System).

Would love to be able to hear it. Can imagine the sound of it making a person break out in whole-body gooseflesh and their teeth to start chattering like crazy. :laugh:

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020226.html]Zoinks!

Jets of streaming plasma expelled by the central black hole of a massive elliptical galaxy likely light up this composite image of 3C296.

If excited by a passing front, radio bubbles can even light up again after a billion years.

::EDIT 2::

Cant]http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/images.htm]Can't pass this up. Is in the Astropix link above. More spectacular images of radio galaxies and quasars. :band:

Palomar · 2004-12-14 15:23:44

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 004]Pulsar denser than previously thought

*It's also cooler than expected. Is the remnant of an 1181 AD supernova and since that time it's cooled to less than 1 million degrees Celsius. This pulsar is approximately 10,000 light years from us.

A long look at a young pulsar with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory revealed unexpectedly rapid cooling, which suggests that it contains much denser matter than previously expected. The pulsar's cool temperature and the vast magnetic web of high-energy particles that surrounds it have implications for the theory of nuclear matter and the origin of magnetic fields in cosmic objects.
"A million degrees may sound pretty hot, but for a young neutron star that's like the frozen tundra in Green Bay, Wisconsin."

--Cindy :up:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-05-25 17:58:26

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#77 2004-05-26 11:54:25

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#78 2004-05-29 03:08:35

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#79 2004-05-29 20:45:26

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#80 2004-05-29 22:20:30

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#81 2004-05-31 07:44:00

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#82 2004-06-10 13:29:18

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#83 2004-06-28 15:29:43

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#84 2004-09-22 07:46:43

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#85 2004-09-25 08:39:36

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#86 2004-09-25 09:34:12

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#87 2004-10-27 05:38:58

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#88 2004-11-05 12:07:58

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#89 2004-11-10 09:16:39

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#90 2004-11-10 09:29:11

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#91 2004-11-10 09:54:57

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#92 2004-11-10 10:30:30

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#93 2004-11-13 21:01:13

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#94 2004-11-19 06:51:54

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#95 2004-11-22 21:15:27

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#96 2004-11-23 05:27:32

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#97 2004-11-23 09:03:54

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#98 2004-11-23 15:10:38

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#99 2004-11-30 11:46:58

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

#100 2004-12-14 15:23:44

Re: Singularity - Black Holes, Gamma Rays, Magnetars, etc

Board footer