Why are Globular Star Clusters Round?
..
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, says it would be great to live in a world and look up in orbit around a star in a globular cluster, "The sky of these worlds would be ablaze with stars." And because they often orbit high above the plane of the cosmos, wow can you imagine what a zoom?!
HOW STELLAR BLACK HOLES ARE LIMITED BY THE MASS OF THE STARS ON THE MAIN SEQUENCE
As it says on this Science News link the first finding about middleweight black holes seems to disprove them, the galaxies have them in massive power and black holes are known 10 times the mass of our own star, both these are seen by the astronomy but no middleweight black holes. It's possible even subatomic particles like muons or baryons are essentially black holes of small size because of faster than light implosion of the strong force with waves of higher density than Einstein's speed of light, so higher speed. (Einstein predicted faster than light in his own EPR paradox and couldn't believe his own creativity, and now evidence for faster than light is becoming more evident (click here for my physics synopsis.) So if two sizes of black holes are known or knowable and gravity at all scales operate the same, mid size black holes are not impossible by any disproof of gravity itself. I think this great midweight diet of physics may be about how the creation and evolution of black holes takes place. If there are no giant stars of 2000 times the sun or 20 stars in orbit, to form a star the only adhesive force to hold the dust well is gravity. All the rest of the dust would evaporate of it's own random motion. Beyond the limit of the cloud stars would be no more massive with time because with the critical density reached inside the cloud, it ignites via fusion which would blow out the rest of the dust. The dust would always be seen to blow away from all the stars, otherwise no limit would be seen on the mass of the stars. Once the stars were formed this mass limit of the stars would also limit the size of the implosion of the black hole formed from the star in it's late evolution so medium weight black holes wouldn't be caused by stellar evolution.
To stop these small stars from adhering to larger and larger star clusters of say 20 stars in orbit and forming medium sized star clusters near us, the distances between the stars would be so great and the motion of the stars is high speed, so each time the star or other massive body would move near, the gravity would slingshot the stars even farther than their already near 0 general density. A black hole at a distance is the same as a more massive star about gravity and if there hasn't been enough time since the formation of the Milky Way this distance and slingshot effect would have stopped all the outer mass of the galaxy from having compacted to a giant massive black hole.
GLOBULAR CLUSTERS WHY NO MEDIUM WEIGHT BLACK HOLES?
Globular clusters themselves would have the massive ionizing power of fusion, much stronger than merely moderate gravity so they would be held outward by the field expansion. With all but the stars that aren't radiant there would always be more outward expansion than contraction, so if the stars move near, the outward force is more. The stars near the center would perhaps either have the most radiation and ionization of the globular cluster to out boost the implosion or at least they would be of higher radiance than the amount needed to achieve it. In essence with globular clusters the radiation would hold off the gravuty instead of the high speed gravitational rebound and combined with the radiation outward, the great distances between stars even in globular clusters would both be enough to make it so black holes would be held off with distance, speed, and radiance. This would be like a gas with more random motion of the stars bubbling outward by heat and outward radiance than the amount needed to cause implosion. Globular clusters would have low angular momentum in general because more spin would cause flattening and globular clusters are spherical, and the random motion of the stars would be of import because if the stars were at rest even with more gravity, the stars would "sieve" and more and more would fall to the center. In order for the cluster to not have spin because the stars are proven to be old, the stars themselves must not have much spin or they would all line up and the clusters would level out. The stars are Type II old stars and they were all formed at the same time, it's believed the cosmos itself is just a few hundred million years older.
HOW STELLAR BLACK HOLES ARE LIMITED BY THE MASS OF THE STARS ON THE MAIN SEQUENCE
As it says on this Science News link the first finding about middleweight black holes seems to disprove them, the galaxies have them in massive power and black holes are known 10 times the mass of our own star, both these are seen by the astronomy but no middleweight black holes. It's possible even subatomic particles like muons or baryons are essentially black holes of small size because of faster than light implosion of the strong force with waves of higher density than Einstein's speed of light, so higher speed. (Einstein predicted faster than light in his own EPR paradox and couldn't believe his own creativity, and now evidence for faster than light is becoming more evident (click here for my physics synopsis.) So if two sizes of black holes are known or knowable and gravity at all scales operate the same, mid size black holes are not impossible by any disproof of gravity itself. I think this great midweight diet of physics may be about how the creation and evolution of black holes takes place. If there are no giant stars of 2000 times the sun or 20 stars in orbit, to form a star the only adhesive force to hold the dust well is gravity. All the rest of the dust would evaporate of it's own random motion. Beyond the limit of the cloud stars would be no more massive with time because with the critical density reached inside the cloud, it ignites via fusion which would blow out the rest of the dust. The dust would always be seen to blow away from all the stars, otherwise no limit would be seen on the mass of the stars. Once the stars were formed this mass limit of the stars would also limit the size of the implosion of the black hole formed from the star in it's late evolution so medium weight black holes wouldn't be caused by stellar evolution.
To stop these small stars from adhering to larger and larger star clusters of say 20 stars in orbit and forming medium sized star clusters near us, the distances between the stars would be so great and the motion of the stars is high speed, so each time the star or other massive body would move near, the gravity would slingshot the stars even farther than their already near 0 general density. A black hole at a distance is the same as a more massive star about gravity and if there hasn't been enough time since the formation of the Milky Way this distance and slingshot effect would have stopped all the outer mass of the galaxy from having compacted to a giant massive black hole.
GLOBULAR CLUSTERS WHY NO MEDIUM WEIGHT BLACK HOLES?
Globular clusters themselves would have the massive ionizing power of fusion, much stronger than merely moderate gravity so they would be held outward by the field expansion. With all but the stars that aren't radiant there would always be more outward expansion than contraction, so if the stars move near, the outward force is more. The stars near the center would perhaps either have the most radiation and ionization of the globular cluster to out boost the implosion or at least they would be of higher radiance than the amount needed to achieve it. In essence with globular clusters the radiation would hold off the gravuty instead of the high speed gravitational rebound and combined with the radiation outward, the great distances between stars even in globular clusters would both be enough to make it so black holes would be held off with distance, speed, and radiance. This would be like a gas with more random motion of the stars bubbling outward by heat and outward radiance than the amount needed to cause implosion. Globular clusters would have low angular momentum in general because more spin would cause flattening and globular clusters are spherical, and the random motion of the stars would be of import because if the stars were at rest even with more gravity, the stars would "sieve" and more and more would fall to the center. In order for the cluster to not have spin because the stars are proven to be old, the stars themselves must not have much spin or they would all line up and the clusters would level out. The stars are Type II old stars and they were all formed at the same time, it's believed the cosmos itself is just a few hundred million years older.
Why are these stars so old?
A possible cause may be about radiation. If radiation pressure is what holds the stars out and stablized at a distance, the inward and outward forces balance. In subatomic physics the neutron is stable in the atom because it's like a Mazda in the lot with other cars around it, so it can't make it out of the lot. Thus the rate of the radioactivity of atoms like hydrogen is essentially slowed to a stop even though the neutron is radioactive. If the stars of the globular cluster are balanced between the outward radiation and gravity, if the gravitational compression is strong enough the radiation wouldn't have as much room to expand and it could slow the rate of the evolution of the stars. With slower evolution of the stars fewer black holes of small size would be seen (a proof or disproof) and this would limit the medium weight black holes, because medium weight black holes wouldn't be created by star capture with great distance and random motion of the stars of globular clusters. Black holes of stellar mass would implode the light of stars and could thus become more massive, but if there were mostly stars in globular clusters and few black holes caused by stellar collapse, the radiation pressure of mostly stars would make all the stars stable between expansion and contraction. The idea that globular clusters are a good measure of the evolution of stars as is believed because they were all formed at the same time would be not a reliable way to know because stars nearby us or elsewhere outside the dense field would have a higher speed of evolution.
A possible cause may be about radiation. If radiation pressure is what holds the stars out and stablized at a distance, the inward and outward forces balance. In subatomic physics the neutron is stable in the atom because it's like a Mazda in the lot with other cars around it, so it can't make it out of the lot. Thus the rate of the radioactivity of atoms like hydrogen is essentially slowed to a stop even though the neutron is radioactive. If the stars of the globular cluster are balanced between the outward radiation and gravity, if the gravitational compression is strong enough the radiation wouldn't have as much room to expand and it could slow the rate of the evolution of the stars. With slower evolution of the stars fewer black holes of small size would be seen (a proof or disproof) and this would limit the medium weight black holes, because medium weight black holes wouldn't be created by star capture with great distance and random motion of the stars of globular clusters. Black holes of stellar mass would implode the light of stars and could thus become more massive, but if there were mostly stars in globular clusters and few black holes caused by stellar collapse, the radiation pressure of mostly stars would make all the stars stable between expansion and contraction. The idea that globular clusters are a good measure of the evolution of stars as is believed because they were all formed at the same time would be not a reliable way to know because stars nearby us or elsewhere outside the dense field would have a higher speed of evolution.
---
You may say, "There is more mass in the globular stars, and it would gravitate to cause more black holes." if there's more radiation pressure, they may be held off and not collapse to this density. If so, a prediction is that some of these systems will have higher density if the gravity is without so much outward flow of the ions.
Even if with enough time the medium mass black holes or the entire galaxies would be giant in mass, there hasn't been enough time for the force to cause this, because the forces of the outer stars and globular clusters would be limiting, the process of formation of medium weight black holes might be slowed down.
EVOLUTION OF GIANT BLACK HOLES
Black holes of giant power may also be explained by the evolution of galaxies. Unlike the stars of globular clusters, giant black holes like the center of mass believed to be in Saggitarius of the Milky Way would have more implosion via gravity than the amount need to hold off the expansion of the other forces like radiance, great room between stars and random motion. A central black hole of more massive type like the Milky Way wouldn't be formed by outward explosion/implosion like the small black holes caused by the late stage collapse of stellar evolution, the gravity would be too strong for the expansion to start. It would be formed by the same general force of gravitational implosion as the formation of the stars from the cloud of dust, but also with stars and small black holes also being in the implosion, and instead of lighting up with fusion at the fusion density it wouldn't light up, because the implosion is stronger than the outward radiation. It's been proven by astronomy that black holes are like super electromagnetic dynamos. I think a fifth and sixth force inside black holes are what may power the giant jets of these bodies, fusion isn't strong enough. [The usual particles of these two action reaction forces (because forces are always in pairs) aren't usually seen in experiments because they would always be unstable except under extreme pressure of the gravity, and fizz out to usual subatomic physics outside the jets.]
The implosion of the central giant black hole of like the Milky Way may be more like the formation of stars than later in their life cycle because beyond a certain density the jets of the galaxy would light up powered by these forces, by seeing just when they light up we can calculate the strength of the 5th and 6th force which I call superfusion. Because these super massive black holes are created by capture of the mass not expansion and implosion at the same time with the end of stellar evolution, the most probable stars to be captured into it would be old stars with reduced radiation so they wouldn't be able to hold off the implosion like with globular clusters. This would explain the otherwise unexplained conundrum of why the stars at the center of the milky way are older than they are at the center of the disc of the milky way, with more density usually the stars around us are not old stars. The stars that are falling in would be stars with lower radiation that would be more heavy than "light".
-
