Jonathan Sarfati on Black Holes and Distant Starlight

Citing:

CMI : Black holes and Lilith: reality and myth (respectively)
Published: 11 September 2010 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/black-holes-lilith

Omitting the exchange of polite phrases in start and end of both letters. And diving each in its parts. I give another take on ...

Dayton L:s Questions and Sarfati's Answer:

I

Dayton:

In your latest article, you state that black holes are regions of space consisting of such intense gravity that no light or information can escape from them. So, really—all theories about them are really speculations? So, it is possible that they aren’t holes into other dimensions or even collapsed stars, etc. Am I thinking right on this—so far? Could they actually turn out to be something completely different than what we’ve been told? (A gateway to hell—just to push it to the limit … just although … ).

What I’m really getting at here is this … is the thinking closed on black holes?

Sarfati:

I think the evidence for black holes is very strong. They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole. (As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

Finally, there are observations consistent with black holes, quite independent of any theories of their origin from stars. They tend to attract matter that forms an accretion disc around the equator. This matter falls inward and releases much gravitational potential energy. In fact, this is an extremely efficient mass-to-energy conversion process, turning 40% of the mass into energy, compared to only about 1% with thermonuclear fusion. This can be observed as a strong X-ray source. The process also results in powerful relativistic jets from the poles. This would explain X-ray binaries: a black hole sucks matter away from a companion star.

There are also observations consistent with supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, including our own. A certain star (S2) orbits around something in the galactic centre at a distance of 17 light hours (about three times that of Pluto), and period of only 15 years (Pluto’s is 248 years). This is consistent with the gravitational pull of 4.1 million solar masses. Furthermore, if this object were not smaller still, the star would collide with it; it’s likely only to be 6.25 light-hours, not much more than Pluto’s orbit. But the only object known to theory that could compact over 4 million solar masses into such a small volume is a black hole.

HGL:

I'll conventiently break this down.

i:

Sarfati:

I think the evidence for black holes is very strong. They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole. (As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

HGL:

I'll even break this further down.

i a:

Sarfati:

They are certainly a theoretical possibility from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

HGL:

Which is speculative. Not an observed fact.

Saying this is like saying a future intelligent reptile race are a theoretical possibility from Darwin's and others' theory of Evolution.

i b:

Sarfati:

Furthermore, once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, then the outward pressure would no longer match gravity. So the star must collapse. There are other known forces that prevent a complete collapse into a black hole. Electron degeneracy pressure stops the collapse and leaves the star as a white dwarf but gravity overcomes this if what is left of the burnt-out star is greater than 1.4 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Then the next barrier is neutron degeneracy pressure, which halts the collapse as a neutron star, but gravity will likely overcome this at about 3 solar masses (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit). Unless a hypothetic quark degeneracy pressure kicks in, there would be nothing to stop the star collapsing completely into a black hole.

HGL:

In a Universe meant to last for about seventhousand and some more years, would this ever happen?

Is Sarfati not peddling an Old Age theorem, without realising it? Or, if he prefers, a Deep Time one?

i c:

Sarfati:

(As for how we might be able to see such black holes under a creationist cosmology, the article How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? explains this in principle.)

HGL:

This is actually dealt with in a shorter way by Sarfati under ij:

ij:

Sarfati:

Finally, there are observations consistent with black holes, quite independent of any theories of their origin from stars. They tend to attract matter that forms an accretion disc around the equator. This matter falls inward and releases much gravitational potential energy. In fact, this is an extremely efficient mass-to-energy conversion process, turning 40% of the mass into energy, compared to only about 1% with thermonuclear fusion. This can be observed as a strong X-ray source. The process also results in powerful relativistic jets from the poles. This would explain X-ray binaries: a black hole sucks matter away from a companion star.

HGL:

The X-rays might have this origin or another one.

Like angels turning the "stellar engines" on that wave length. Confer "the stars were fighting Sisera from their orbits".

iij:

Sarfati:

There are also observations consistent with supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, including our own. A certain star (S2) orbits around something in the galactic centre at a distance of 17 light hours (about three times that of Pluto), and period of only 15 years (Pluto’s is 248 years). This is consistent with the gravitational pull of 4.1 million solar masses. Furthermore, if this object were not smaller still, the star would collide with it; it’s likely only to be 6.25 light-hours, not much more than Pluto’s orbit. But the only object known to theory that could compact over 4 million solar masses into such a small volume is a black hole.

HGL:

These sizes are supposing standard Heliocentric cosmology and its presumption about parallax is totally OK. See below.

II

Dayton:

Peering into the universe:

How can a telescope actually see “millions” of “years” into the past, when all they do is magnify the light they receive? Light being as it is only transmits the “picture/snap-shot” of an event. However, once light is created, it travels until it is absorbed or dispersed.

If we can see an object a million light years away—we are looking at a snap-shot of a moment in time that is constantly progressing in itstime-line continuum. So if we were to magnify that timeline tunnel until wecan see it with a magnification factor that enables us to see it from adistance of only a few miles … would we see it as it was a million years ago, or would we see it as we are presently seeing it but only with a greater clarity like you would when looking at an object from a distance on earth through a strong pair of binoculars?

Sarfati:

I’m not sure exactly what you are asking with your second question. I would suggest that Dr John Hartnett’s application of Carmelian relativity would help (see for example chapter 5 in our Creation Answers Book, and his book Starlight, Time and the New Physics, above right).

HGL:

The answer he was asking for was more probably one which would precede the next question which Sarfati answered.

When an object is so far away as to get its light rays to us after a certain time, then an optical device will not reduce the time it takes for light to travel, it will only increase the angle so as to make the object appear in a grandeur as if it were closer.

Suppose all stars are really one light day above us (that means 25 million 920 thousand kilometers, if the light day is time measured by solar day, some light minutes less if time is measured by stellar day), than a telescope might aggrandize the stars so they are appearing as if they were three light hours away. But if they really WERE three light hours away, they would right now not be appearing where they were yesterday, but where they were three hours ago, speaking as to angle of observation. They would appear elsewhere.

Transpose this to the supposed light-YEARS the stars are by Heliocentrics assumed to be away and to some of them being millions of them away, this of course leaves the distant starlight problem for Heliocentric Young Universe Creationism exactly where it is.

And here I have already stated that the CMI standard answer is to my mind not satisfactory, stars being MUCH closer is, and this just requires:

• Geocentrism;
• Hence Tychonian orbits arranged by moving angels;
• Hence supposed "parallax" and "annual aberration" of stars also arranged by moving angels;
• Hence these NOT being a reverse view of our own supposed annual movement;
• Hence the parallax NOT giving a first step of "cosmic distance ladder".

As I have stated often before, and might be stating often hence.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Rufus and Zosimus, Martyrs
18-XII-2015