Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Mad Astronomy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,231

    Mad Astronomy

    Another thread prompted this idea:

    A black hole of planetary mass located at the centre of a planet-sized balloon.

    Imagine landing on it!

    Presumably it would have to be ribbed as you can't actually inflate it.

    Any other comments or suggestions?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,953
    Ribbed with active Loftstrom loops, maybe? I can't think of a material that would hold it up, but a dynamic support system might work. It would also need some kind of stabilization system.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,583
    As you've mentioned, keeping it supported would be very difficult, and you'd need an active stationkeeping system to keep the shell centered on the black hole. But assuming that you can manage those problems, landing on it or walking around on it would be the same as for an ordinary planet. Don't try to dig too far down, though.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Look up "supramundane planet" by Paul Birch. It's a shell kept at the 1 G point on a gas giant or other object (a black hole would do) by dynamic support (rings about the planet or object spinning at greater than orbital velocity, supporting the shell). Yes, similar to the Loftstrom loop.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    A black hole of planetary mass located at the centre of a planet-sized balloon.
    [...]
    Presumably it would have to be ribbed as you can't actually inflate it.
    Or maybe you could inflate it? The black hole would only have a radius of around a centimeter, so the rate of gas loss might not be so bad.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    2,772
    The World is Round by Tony Rothman. A HUGE world but with (roughly) Earth-normal gravity, and a day/night cycle pattern that will make you go spare.

    Fred
    "For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
    -- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    Or maybe you could inflate it? The black hole would only have a radius of around a centimeter, so the rate of gas loss might not be so bad.
    So you're assuming it would have an atmosphere?

    Would a black hole have an atmosphere? Wouldn't the air particles end up being either swallowed up or ejected from the system?
    As above, so below

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Look up "supramundane planet" by Paul Birch. It's a shell kept at the 1 G point on a gas giant or other object (a black hole would do) by dynamic support (rings about the planet or object spinning at greater than orbital velocity, supporting the shell). Yes, similar to the Loftstrom loop.
    I can understand how that would help at the "equator" of the shell, but what about the poles? They can't be rotating at all, so you couldn't make them rotate faster than 1 G, right?
    As above, so below

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I can understand how that would help at the "equator" of the shell, but what about the poles? They can't be rotating at all, so you couldn't make them rotate faster than 1 G, right?
    The shell is not what is spun above orbital speed. Rather, the idea is to have rings of material moving faster than orbital velocity holding up the shell. It could be done with pellets moving through tubes within the shell coupled electromagnetically (like magnetic levitation trains), and there would be polar tubes as well as equatorial ones. (And actually, he proposes things a bit more complex than that, but that gives you an idea. If you want to see more details, start here - Paul Birch's pdf on his supramundane planet idea)

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I can understand how that would help at the "equator" of the shell, but what about the poles? They can't be rotating at all, so you couldn't make them rotate faster than 1 G, right?
    To support a shell dynamically, the "rotation" happens inside the support tubes. Imagine a metal hollow loop full of magnetised moving bullets. The magnetic fields prevent contact with, and transfer momentum to, the loop. Now imagine a spherical basket "woven" from these loops, providing outward thrust in all directions.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    So you're assuming it would have an atmosphere?
    No, I'm pondering the possibility that the large planet-sized balloon is inflated with gas. The OP considered this impossible because this gas would surely get sucked up by the black hole.

    But I'm noting that the black hole is pretty small, so the rate of gas loss into the black hole might not be so bad.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    9,231
    Perhaps you could put an airtight shell around the black hole to further reduce the loss of gas?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    I'm noting that the black hole is pretty small, so the
    rate of gas loss into the black hole might not be so bad.
    It would be very bad. If you started with the whole
    shebang magically in place, gravity would collapse the
    atmosphere to the center in about 22 minutes.

    Even if the air doesn't swirl around but just falls straight
    down, it will probably be compressed in the horizontal
    direction enough to glow as plasma. It will be pulled
    down so fast, though, that decompression in the vertical
    direction might prevent it from heating that much. At
    the event horizon it will be moving downward at c.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    Perhaps you could put an airtight shell around the black hole to further reduce the loss of gas?
    The inner shell, being closer to the source of gravity, would need even more support.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    It would be very bad. If you started with the whole
    shebang magically in place, gravity would collapse the
    atmosphere to the center in about 22 minutes.
    Nonsense. Magic doesn't hold it in place, outward pressure does.

    Even if the air doesn't swirl around but just falls straight
    down, it will probably be compressed in the horizontal
    direction enough to glow as plasma. It will be pulled
    down so fast, though, that decompression in the vertical
    direction might prevent it from heating that much.
    This is physically impossible. Adiabatic compression heating takes place regardless of how quickly or slowly the compression takes. It even works in reverse (as in negative compression speed).

    At the event horizon it will be moving downward at c.
    The event horizon is only about 1cm in diameter! That's the size of the "drain hole". Immediately around it, extreme adiabatic heating and swirling motion will cause extreme amounts of outward photon pressure.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,220
    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    It would be very bad. If you started with the whole
    shebang magically in place, gravity would collapse the
    atmosphere to the center in about 22 minutes.
    Nonsense. Magic doesn't hold it in place, outward
    pressure does.
    No, *NOTHING* is holding it in place. We start by
    magically setting the situation up, then instantaneously
    let nature take over, and the air starts falling into the
    black hole.

    However, I now realizer that the magic needs to be more
    magical than I previously thought. The downward pressure
    of all that air would be too great to be held up by anything
    real. It is a situation which fundamentally cannot exist. It
    requires the presence of the black hole in order to get the
    initial conditions right, yet the black hole cannot be present
    because the air would be falling into it.

    The outward pressure at the surface of the black hole of
    course is zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Even if the air doesn't swirl around but just falls straight
    down, it will probably be compressed in the horizontal
    direction enough to glow as plasma. It will be pulled
    down so fast, though, that decompression in the vertical
    direction might prevent it from heating that much.
    This is physically impossible. Adiabatic compression
    heating takes place regardless of how quickly or slowly
    the compression takes. It even works in reverse (as in
    negative compression speed).
    I wasn't saying anything about the speed of compression.
    I was talking about the amount of compression. The air
    is compressed horizontally but decompressed vertically.
    The decompression counteracts at least some of the
    compression.

    It is decompressed because gravity sucks the air down
    fastest at the bottom, and less fast toward the outside
    of the sphere. At the very bottom it is sucked down at
    the speed of light.

    Quote Originally Posted by IsaacKuo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    At the event horizon it will be moving downward at c.
    The event horizon is only about 1cm in diameter!
    That's the size of the "drain hole". Immediately around it,
    extreme adiabatic heating and swirling motion will cause
    extreme amounts of outward photon pressure.
    Oh. You're depending on swirling motion and photon
    pressure, not just air pressure. Well, in that case, maybe.

    I was assuming no significant swirling, in which case the
    air goes straight down, even with a teensy 1 cm drain,
    and since it is all accelerating downward under gravity,
    I figured it wouldn't get compressed all that much. Not
    nearly enough for photon pressure to be a major factor.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .
    Last edited by Jeff Root; 2011-Nov-15 at 12:26 AM. Reason: fix broken quote
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    No, *NOTHING* is holding it in place. We start by
    magically setting the situation up, then instantaneously
    let nature take over, and the air starts falling into the
    black hole.
    Okay, but not very quickly. The situation starts off with a pressure inflated balloon, so the starting assumption is that pressure is holding up the balloon.

    It's like putting a cm sized drain hole in the bottom of the ocean. Sure, water will start leaking out...but it will take a long time for it all to drain out.

    However, I now realizer that the magic needs to be more
    magical than I previously thought. The downward pressure
    of all that air would be too great to be held up by anything
    real. It is a situation which fundamentally cannot exist.
    Ridiculous. Stars exist. This is a fact, and it is not magical. Stars are held up by things that are real.

    What holds up a typical star? Photon pressure. This photon pressure is ultimately powered by heat input from fusion reactions. But energy input can come from other sources also. In the case, heat input comes from the extreme energy radiated by a black hole taking in surrounding matter.

    The outward pressure at the surface of the black hole of
    course is zero.
    Which is fine, because the outward pressure is caused by things around the black hole. This applies to stellar mass black holes and supermassive black holes, both of which we can observe in real life. Even though these black holes are much larger than the hypothetical planetary mass black hole we're talking about, the same principle applies--most of the incoming mass doesn't just plummet into the black hole. In fact, most of the mass gets pushed back outward.

    Mother nature just doesn't like cramming large volumes of mass into tiny volumes, even when the center of that tiny volume is an inescapable black hole.

    Oh. You're depending on swirling motion and photon
    pressure, not just air pressure. Well, in that case, maybe.

    I was assuming no significant swirling, in which case the
    air goes straight down, even with a teensy 1 cm drain,
    and since it is all accelerating downward under gravity,
    I figured it wouldn't get compressed all that much. Not
    nearly enough for photon pressure to be a major factor.
    It is impossible to avoid swirling, and it is impossible to avoid extreme amounts of compression and adiabatic heating.

    IF the initial conditions assumed a long thin 1cm diameter rod of material, then sure. The cylinder of material would more or less just fall straight down into the 1cm hole. But we're talking about a sphere of material, not a long thin rod. Even if it moved "straight" down, you're looking at millions of square kilometers compressing onto 3 square centimeters. That implies extreme compression and adiabatic heating--no way around it!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    Another thread prompted this idea:

    A black hole of planetary mass located at the centre of a planet-sized balloon.

    Imagine landing on it!

    Presumably it would have to be ribbed as you can't actually inflate it.

    Any other comments or suggestions?
    You mean like Pohl & Williamson's Saga of Cuckoo (The Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star)?
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,953
    Quote Originally Posted by swampyankee View Post
    You mean like Pohl & Williamson's Saga of Cuckoo (The Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star)?
    That was much larger than planet sized, & wasn't around a black hole. The part about dynamic support was there, although it used elongated subatomic particles rather than Lofstrom loops.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-08, 04:53 PM
  2. Astronomy Without A Telescope – Animal Astronomy
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Jul-03, 11:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Jun-01, 01:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-May-28, 01:10 AM
  5. Bad Astronomy in Astronomy: Expanding Universe question
    By Crimson in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-26, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •