Messier 87 – Virgo A Supergiant Elliptical Galaxy

Written by Robert A. Beatty BE (Minerals) FAusIMM

Messier 87 - Wikipedia

1)         Introduction: “Messier 87 (also known as Virgo A or NGC 4486, generally abbreviated to M87) is a supergiant elliptical galaxy in the constellation Virgo, and one of the most massive galaxies in the local universe.”[2] M87 recently received notoriety due to the imaging of a BH in the centre of this galaxy.

This is an abbreviated paper from reference [1] and the PROM section:

https://principia-scientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/M87Galaxy.pdf  

You are invited to provide reader feedback.

The image result took years to obtain and involved the orbiting Hubble and Chandra Telescopes,[3] as well as earth based Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) array formed into Very Long Baseline Interferometry, or VLBI.[4]

Figure 1. Chandra BH Image, included the footnote comment

Chandra X-ray Close-up of the Core of M87, EHT Image of Black Hole

Credit, X-ray: NASA/CXC/Villanova University/J. Neilsen, Radio: Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration” and

Surrounding the elliptical galaxy is a reservoir of multimillion-degree gas, which glows brightly in X-ray light. Chandra’s studies of this hot gas have given astronomers insight into the behaviour and properties of the giant black hole. For example, astronomers have used Chandra data to discover ripples in the hot gas, which provide evidence for repeated outbursts from the black hole roughly every 6 million years or so.

Controversy surrounding Figure 1, concentrated on the EHT component of the image. [5] The video presentation focused on the great difficulty/impossibility of obtaining the EHT “image” from such a distant object.

Figure 1. Chandra BH Image

However, the Chandra X-Ray component of Figure 1, clearly shows a radiating finger pointing to the star centre of the picture.

Streaming out from the center of M87 like a cosmic searchlight is one of nature’s most amazing phenomena: a black-hole-powered jet of subatomic particles travelling at nearly the speed of light.”

2)         The Black Hole Jet:

The ‘jet’ is described as “subatomic particles travelling at nearly the speed of light” raises the questions:

  • What causes this stream?
  • How do sub atomic particles leave a BH, which is reported as being too gravitationally intense for even light to escape as defined by the Schwarzschild Radius BH theory?

3)         At The Black Hole:

At a BH, the distance factor approaches zero, which provides a mathematical limit to this expression, because dividing anything by zero produces an indeterminate solution.

Figure 3. Kruskal-Szekeres Diagram

This problem was addressed and is now described in Figure 3. Kruskal-Szekeres Diagram. (KS Diagram)

In general relativity Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, named after Martin Kruskal and George Szekeres, are a coordinate system for the Schwarzschild geometry for a black hole.”[7]

4)         Physical Interpretation of KS Diagram:

Figure 4. Mass at Near Zero Distance.

If we use a 2D diagram to explain this action, it appears as shown in Figure 4. Mass at Near Zero Distance. Here incoming mass approaches the event horizon at a BH, and forms into two asymptotic curves which can approach either the positive or negative vertical axis.

As the mass passes closer and closer to the vertical axis, the outer most elements of mass encounter the event horizon and are removed.

Figure 5. Atomic Illustration

This happens at the atomic level. The outer most elements are electrons as schematically illustrated in Figure 5. Atomic Illustration,[8] with protons and neutrons assembled at the nucleus.

Figure 6. Black Hole Section.

Our composite interpretation of the KS Diagram shows in Figure 6. Black Hole Section.[9] Here, electrons are separated between positrons and electrons as they pass across the BH surface. Positrons remain at the surface of the BH, where they provide a stabilising charge for the internal neutrons, which otherwise have a half-life of minutes. “The neutron is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two down quarks and one up quark. A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes.”[10]

The Gravisphere theory proposes electrons emerging from the BH, form an entangled relationship with the remaining positrons, before travelling through space as Electromagnetic Gravity Strings (EGS/egs).[11]

The incoming mass is further consumed when the protons and neutrons reach the Event Horizon, with the neutrons remaining at the BH, thereby increasing the mass of the structure.

Protons temporarily enter the BH, but are soon ejected, because the positive charge influence of the surrounding positrons, provide a repulsion force which ejects proton-rich cosmic rays along the BH axis.

The M87 library of information which includes the Hubble cosmic ray image described as “This Hubble Space Telescope photograph shows the jet of matter ejected from M87 at nearly the speed of light, as it stretches 1.5 kpc (5 kly) from the galactic core.

5)         Cosmic Ray Ejection Speed:

The positrons and protons have equal positive charges, and Coulomb’s Law calculates the force between two quantities.

It is assumed the discharge of protons from the BH operates similar to a rail gun where electromagnetic charges are progressively introduced along the barrel length, thereby accelerating the charge until it exits the gun.

Calculations show a mass of 700 protons is ejected at a velocity, 93% of the speed of light.

Figure 8. Black Hole Surface Comparison

Figure 6 illustrates a young BH arrangement which can be compared to an apple with a single core axis.

However, as a BH ages it emits proton charges, but builds up and retains positrons on its surface. This effectively establishes a permanent and growing positive charge on the skin of the BH which then changes from a smooth apple surface to a wrinkled custard apple surface shape. The comparison shows in Figure 8. Black Hole Surface Comparison.

A crenellated neutron star skin means that cosmic rays can emerge from points all over its surface. I suspect the neutron star has a crenellated positive surface charge providing many points of exit for the cosmic rays, which are otherwise interpreted as coming from the one axial emission source. This also explains why we on Earth always seem to be in the right position to see an “axial” view of a neutron star.

It seems possible the increasing positive charge on the surface of a BH will eventually cause the surface to explode off in all directions. This could explain some observed stellar tectonic events, such as those referred to in the Introduction.

7)         Conclusions:

  1. There can be little doubt that BHs exist, and represent one of the most interesting and poorly understood parts of cosmology.
  2. BHs provide a possible explanation for the source of gravity.
  3. Emission of cosmic rays from BHs provides a partial explanation to support the continuous universe theory.

 

References:

[1] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/M87Galaxy.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87

[3] https://chandra.si.edu/blog/node/719

[4] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2019/4/19/how-scientists-captured-the-first-image-of-a-black-hole/

[5] https://principia-scientific.org/the-black-hole-image-data-fabrication-masterclass/

[6] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-87

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates

[8] https://wou.edu/chemistry/files/2017/04/atomic-structure-1.png

[9] https://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Gravispheres.pdf

[10] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/proton.html

[11] http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/InterstellarGravity.pdf

[12] http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0209

BobBeatty@bosmin.com


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (20)

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Robert,

    It took me a little while to document two quotes from your References 3 and 4. For I could not find the quote–“Surrounding the elliptical galaxy is a reservoir of multimillion-degree gas, which glows brightly in X-ray light. Chandra’s studies of this hot gas have given astronomers insight into the behavior and properties of the giant black hole.”– at the reference you supplied. I found the quote at (https://chandra.si.edu/blog/node/719)

    The other quote in which I was interested (which you did not quote) is–“The second target was the supermassive black hole M87*. One of the largest known supermassive black holes, M87* is located at the center of the gargantuan elliptical galaxy Messier 87, or M87, 53 million light-years (318 quintillion miles) away.”–found at the link for Ref 4: (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2019/4/19/how-scientists-captured-the-first-image-of-a-black-hole/).

    What is special about these two quotes? I have been pondering writing an essay to explain how there are scientific observations which confirm much I which I read on the first page of Genesis in my NIV Holy Bible. But I was not sure where to find the scientific evidence, of which I was aware, neatly packaged.Genesis 3-5: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.” ” (NIV)

    Religion is a belief system so I simply state that I believe the sentence–And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.–refers to periods of time. In this case, based upon science we know that the astronomers are observing what existed 53 million light-years ago. For we have measured the speed of light and this speed has not found to have changed, within limits of observation, in recent history. So it seems to me that 53 million years ago might qualify as “in the beginning”. And the black hole has been observed (it could be that there were no glowing gases at the center of the huge whirling mass of very hot gas because of a centrifugal effect or it could be because the black hole is the result of the gravitational action of a supermassive body at the center of the hot gas matter.

    However, the important point is that it is an observed scientific fact, not a belief, is that light is seen to have been naturally separated from the darkness 53 million years ago. And especially important is there is no sun in sight.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Andy Rowlands

      |

      M87 is 53-54 million light years away as you say Jerry, but that does not mean that’s the age of the Universe. Scientific measurements tell us the Universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Our Sun and the Earth are about five billion years old themselves.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Andy,

        I do not often question what you write, but…

        You wrote: “Our Sun and the Earth are about five billion years old themselves.”

        We know this: How???

        I used observed ‘facts’ to give the age of what the astronomers were observing about M87. I did not say that was the beginning. But I believe what was being observed was that which was between the beginning and the present.

        A question I have not seen being asked is: How do the astronomers, with their telescopes, see when there appears to be no nearby star (sun)? And I accept their explanation of a very hot gas. This as curious as it might seem. Now, I have no explanation how the gas got so hot. But I do trust the images that the astronomers claim to see. For I do not believe there is an artist producing them.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Andy Rowlands

          |

          Hi Jerry, no probs if you disagree with me, that makes for a healthy debate 🙂 There are many dating methods that have been developed after it was found Carbon-14 dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years, and of course, can only be applied to things that were once alive. The oldest known rocks are zircon crystals from Australia, which have been dated to 4.4 billion years by radiometric dating, and it is assumed they formed after the Earth had fully coalesced, thus leading to the approximate age of Earth at around five billion years.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Andy,

          I do not term what you write and I write to be a debate. I term it a sharing of accepted information. You are not stating anything which only you think and your topics are topics which I know about and have pondered in this case about which you just wrote.

          The carbon dating, as I understand it, is based upon an ongoing nuclear reaction involving radiation from the sun and the carbon dioxide in out atmosphere. Which, without plants, there would be no matter by which we learn of this ongoing nuclear reaction.

          But then you shift to another dating technique based upon known natural radioactive decay of certain isotopes.

          I do not accept a common interpretation of Genesis 1:2 “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (NIV)

          Which ‘common interpretation’ is that the Creator God created Matter. For what was ‘the deep’? But more critically important, there was WATER. The glowing gas clouds which astronomers observe with their instruments appear formless to me. And I accept tha in the beginning there was no earth so it was ’empty’.

          So in my imagined ‘beginning’ there was no beginning for the isotopes of matter. And the natural decay of the long ‘lived’ radio-isotopes’ have been continually occurring. And I must add, I believe the number of the original isotopes was finite.

          Of course, I accept that this is only what I image. It’s just an idea to ponder.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Andy Rowlands

            |

            A sharing of information it is then 🙂 I am not religious, so I favour the scientific explanation for the origin and age of the Universe.

          • Avatar

            John O'Sullivan

            |

            Jerry, Do you have any comments to make about the paper?

          • Avatar

            Jerry Krause

            |

            Hi John,

            I never intended to formally make any comments to Robert’s Prom. This even though I guess I did make comments here about it,

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Jerry and Andy, about 15 years ago I happened upon a source that said Earth was 4.5 billion years old. As I looked into it, I found that figure was accepted throughout the “science community”. It so happened that I had a lot of spare time that winter, so I started researching.

          The only actual science comes from isotope decay. Since isotopes decay at known rates, and these rates are believed to be constant, it is simply a matter of solving an equation to find the age of the sample. The problem is the equation has two unknowns. There is one equation, but two unknowns–the time (age), and the starting mass. This is where science is left behind, and pseudoscience starts.

          To find the starting mass, they have built layer upon layer of assumptions, estimates, beliefs. The solution to the equation becomes dependant on their beliefs. The “4.5 billion years” is a belief, it’s not science.

          Jerry–bright sun, clear sky–
          directly overhead –> -48.3ºF
          ground, in shade –> 57.7ºF

          • Avatar

            Tom O

            |

            Thank you JD for stating the obvious – that modern science has built itself on assumptions as much as data. You are correct in your 2 unknowns, and there is the assumption that conditions that apply today have always been the same.

            Just as it is assumed that the graphical techniques that are applied to fuzzy areas in a picture actually better define that which is in those fuzzy areas. The universe and everything in it, it would appear, is cleverly defined in one or another of the endless equations defined in the mathematics.

            I am not at all convinced that there is an equation that defines how I think nor one that can accurately predict when the Moon will finally move beyond the gravitational hold of the Earth. Since light appears to move through different mediums at different velocities, and is bent by gravity, it defies the rules of modern science that actually is built upon its properties. An interesting paradox in its own right.

            One thing is certain, we have no idea how large the universe is since we are not at the center of it, and we can only look into space to the same depth in all directions. Yet science says “this is so” and we are to believe because it is built on equations that require light to travel at a constant velocity and can have no mass or its mass would be infinite. Strange, strange world we live in Captain Jack.

        • Avatar

          Jerry Krause

          |

          Hi Guys,

          Newton wrote that he could not calculate the motion of the moon because of the variable gravitational influence of Jupiter. Too many bodies involved. The universe is a very dynamic place. And you cannot make it stand still by averaging.

          Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Andy,
    I am interested to know if you think it is feasible for:
    “For example, astronomers have used Chandra data to discover ripples in the hot gas, which provide evidence for repeated outbursts from the black hole roughly every 6 million years or so.”
    to be produced by the skin layer being thrown off the BH due to the build up of positive charges?

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Robert,

    Maybe I should not make comment because you addressed your question to Andy. But ‘friction’ is known to produce ‘electric fields’, whatever a voltage difference is. Thunder (lightning) storms is pretty good evidence of this. And we certainly know that a lighting
    ‘bolt’ is a lot of energy capable of tearing (breaking) trees and structures apart in the twinkling of an eye.

    But if you believe “astronomers have used Chandra data to discover ripples” I believe astronomers have programmed computers to produce ripples. I challenge anyone to program the path of an lightning bolt whose path can be seen and recorded on film or electronically. Maybe they forget the huge volume of space they are actually observing and not anything approaching the detail of a lightning bolt.

    I do not claim to know anything but that I have observed.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Hi Jerry,
      The ripples observed by Chandra are at a series displacement of around 6million light years from BH M87, in a radiating pattern. Hence they have been observed and so are believable.

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Robert,

        Accurate Definition is important. And I am confused.

        Figure 1 of the article shows two images and about the figure I read: “However, the Chandra X-Ray component of Figure 1, clearly shows a radiating finger pointing to the star centre of the picture.”

        Then there is the quote: “Streaming out from the center of M87 like a cosmic searchlight is one of nature’s most amazing phenomena: a black-hole-powered jet of subatomic particles travelling at nearly the speed of light.”

        First, I have a simple question: Which way is this jet of subatomic particles travelling, toward M87 or away from M87?

        Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        Robert Beatty

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        You need to go to the full paper, Figure 2, [4] where the NASA blog page at https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-87 carries this quote. “Streaming out from the center of M87 like a cosmic searchlight is one of nature’s most amazing phenomena: a black-hole-powered jet of subatomic particles traveling at nearly the speed of light. In this Hubble image, the blue jet contrasts with the yellow glow from the combined light of billions of unresolved stars and the point-like clusters of stars that make up this galaxy.
        Credits: NASA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA”
        The jet in this image shows the stream in more detail with the narrow end of the stream coming from the BH – just like a hose pipe. So the direction of travel is clearly away from the BH.

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Robert,
          You know I don’t believe that gravity is a function of mass but if gravity was pulling light towards the center of the black hole wouldn’t that light form the same shaped cone as all then”photons” converged heading towards that center of mass?
          Herb

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi Robert,

        You wrote: “So the direction of travel is clearly away from the BH.”

        I had concluded this could be the case. But I really needed you to confirm this because I know nothing about the reasonings of these scientists and your understanding of the topic concerning BHs.

        But I do know that sub-atomic particles are matter which have a rest mass, very tiny as it is. I know that Einstein proposed that this force we call gravity could ‘bend’ light (energy which has no rest mass). And I accept, as do most scientists, that evidence has been observed that gravity does bend light.

        So some scientists have come up with the idea of BHs that there can be such a great mass of matter whose gravity can prevent light from being transmitted (emitted) from the local neighborhood of this great mass.

        I also have learned that the force we term gravity is a unique force, as we understand other fundamental forces like electrical and magnetic forces, because these other forces are observed to be in one case attractive and in another case repulsive. But we have generally seen that the force of gravity is only attractive.

        I ask you, do you not see, if “So the direction of travel is clearly away from the BH.”, these scientists have finally observed ‘anti-gravity’ (a repulsive gravitational force) as the BH, whose gravity, on one hand, prevents light from being emitted from it, is, on the other hand, emitting matter–traveling nearly at the speed light–from the neighborhood of the BH.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Hi Jdhuffman
    You raise a very interesting point regarding the Earth age. The question is how long did it take before zircon crystals could condense and form? In considering this question we might assume that all planetary primordial material started from a reasonably common composition – including the radio active components. In this case, the decay periods should be a function of the amount of radioactive material at each planet. In other words, the bigger the planet, the slower the rate of overall decay and hence planet cooling. Using this information we can determine a ‘planet time line’ which plots planet size against the planet’s age, described as Geological Time Scale. See Figure 22.1 at page 74 of http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf
    Using this approach it seems the age of our planetary system may be 3.2 billion years older than we currently estimate.

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    Hi Jerry and Herb,
    Jerry raises a pertinent comment “these scientists have finally observed ‘anti-gravity’ (a repulsive gravitational force) as the BH, whose gravity, on one hand, prevents light from being emitted from it, is, on the other hand, emitting matter–traveling nearly at the speed light–from the neighborhood of the BH.”
    And Herb raises a similar point “if gravity was pulling light towards the center of the black hole wouldn’t that light form the same shaped cone as all then”photons” converged heading towards that center of mass?”
    Water entering a faucet commonly spirals. Similarly material entering a BH is observed to follow a diminishing orbital path. The material closest to the BH enters first, not the most remote material.
    The great Steven Hawking predicted that radiation could come from a BH.
    This cosmic radiation is not so much a case of “anti gravity” as an example of what I think of as the ‘rail gun’ effect. The positively charged protons are being forcibly ejected from a positively charged BH environment, and the calculated mechanism by which that can occur is detailed in the PROM paper at Figure 7.
    This seems to be a calculation first, and is an example of how good science is never ‘settled’ but continues to develop as new information and observations come to hand.
    We should never be afraid of revisiting ‘truths’ of the past with modern thinking based on more recent observations, or interpretations. This includes the works of all the great, revered minds of previous eras.
    To do otherwise, simply transforms science into a religion.

Comments are closed