How would we see the stars in the background if we were spinning?
If our spacecraft were falling into a black hole, in "free fall" (represented by the red line), when we were very close to the event horizon, we would be spinning at almost the speed of light.
My question would be: How would we see the stars in the background if we were spinning?
- Inside the ship we would be "floating" inside like the astronauts of the ISS. That is, we would be in free fall, because our engines are off.
- In this scenario, our System is Inertial. That is, we would not experience the Centrifugal Force or the Coriolis Force that only occur in Non-Inertial Systems, such as on the surface of the Earth because the Earth rotates on its axis.
- If we are in an Inertial System like the astronauts on the ISS are, we could consider ourselves as being at rest. Even though we are traveling at almost the speed of light around the black hole. Be moving straight and uniform is the same as being at rest.
- With these facts, as the spacecraft rotates around the black hole in a "straight line", we have no choice but to say that it is the same space that is curved so that the spacecraft rotates around the black hole in a straight line. That is, in its geodesic trajectory.
- And the initial question, How would we see the stars in the background if we were spinning? If both the astronauts of the ISS and we who are falling towards the black hole are in a similar Inertial System, the Universe would have to see it the same in all these conditions. We should all observe the same reference system. For this reason, we cannot see the stars in the background moving from one side to the other, as when we turn a curve on a highway, the lights of the towns seem to all move from one side to the other. The solution would be that the light from the fixed stars in the background would also be falling towards the black hole with a trajectory similar to that of the spacecraft. That is, trajectory of the light is not curved. It is the same space that is curved so that the light goes in a straight line. Since the ship is traveling at almost the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light, the notion of time comes in here. For these two trajectories to be exactly the same, the passage of time of the spacecraft has to be slowed down to match the trajectory of the light.
Both we and astronauts would see the background stars fixed in the sky. As they move in a similar Inertial System, we have to observe the same. As we can see, there is no other possibility if space does not curve and time does not slow down. Light always moves in a straight line over a curved space and a variable time. The light does not curve. It is space-time that is deformed.
Following this simile but in the opposite direction, the light emitted by an AGN would not come out in a straight line as we might think at first. The emitted light should rotate around the black hole as it ascends until little by little, it manages to escape the black hole's gravity (represented by the red line in the image above).
We know that the Blazars emit from the two opposite Lobes through the Jet that are very focused, one of them pointing towards us. In the Quasar as in the Seyfert Galaxies, its light is emitted from the same accretion disk because its brightness change is really fast as in the Blazars. The only thing they differ is in their light amplitude. I want to emphasize this fact because according to my model, all AGNs emit their light from the same place, thus being equally predictable. Another concept is that in Blazars, once the radiation is emitted, it comes out through the highly focused Jet. This lobe of the Jet would only behave as a radiation speaker, amplifying the signal. Only that, this lobe being very alleged of the accretion disk so that it is not affected by the time delay. That is, the lobe pointing toward us would actually be very far from the event horizon compared to the accretion disk.
As my model predicts a similar time delay between the different AGNs, this fact tells us that in all of these cases the radiation emission comes from the same place, from the accretion disk. As the lobe pointing towards us in the Blazars is much more focused and smaller in size than the accretion disk, this is the main reason why its brightness change in the Blazars is much faster relative to time than the rest of the AGNs. What I mean is that radiation is not created or generated in the lobes. It just focuses and amplifies it.
An observational fact is that the exact day that the maximum occurs in the optical, the Gamma flash does not always occur on the same day.
What I am noticing is that in a main explosion, the Gamma flash usually appears about 4 days before the maximum in the optical. In secondary bursts, the Gamma flash usually coincides exactly with the maximum in the optical or appears a few days later.
This leads me to the conclusion that in the main explosion, the Gamma explosion is primarily responsible for the AGN explosion. In secondary explosions, the explosions in the optic are responsible for the Gamma flashes, which depending on the light intensity in the optic, depends on the delay in the Gamma flash. This is further complicated because even a few weeks later another Gamma flash occurs which is symmetry, because the two opposite lobes are connected. The normal thing is that this second Gamma flash is not detected because depending on the movement of the precession of the equinoxes of the black hole, the opposite lobe is hidden from us at that moment, which is the most normal.
As the secondary explosions are determined from the main explosion, these explosions are quantized in time, being predictable both the maximum and minimum in the optical, as well as the Gamma flashes. The normal thing is that the Gamma flash occurs a few days later, although in very few occasions, it can even occur before the maximum in the optical, this being not the normal thing in the secondary explosions.
These secondary bursts are defined by quantized periods plus their time delay, which is always proportional to the elapsed time. Taking this as true, all secondary explosions are defined. Of course, my model does not predict how bright the secondary explosion will be. What it predicts is exactly the day of the secondary explosion. It is also true that there are quantified periods more predisposed to a bigger explosion than in others.
In order to define more exactly these quantized periods and what would be their constant of proportionality in the time delay, which each AGN has its own, it is necessary to interpret it in its light curves, because observations are not always as detailed as one would like.
Even so, the time delay tells us that it is caused by the gravitational force, with the radiation emission zone being very close to the event horizon. As each AGN has its own size and morphology, each AGN has its own observable time delay. Hence, each AGN has its own proportionality constant.
(Td = T x D)
Td = Time delay
T = Time elapsed
D = Darriba constant