None of these supernovas occurred where there was prior human knowledge of a star. Indeed those most recently witnessed, in far away galaxies, have been attributed to 'white dwarfs colliding' because we are certain that no star was at their location prior to their sudden appearance.
The Reader's Digest Universal Dictionary: 'Implosion - A more or less violent collapse inward'. Only nuclear fission is as 'violent' as nuclear fusion, and a vast cloud of hydrogen atoms diminished to the dimensions of a black hole can best be described as a collapsed inwards.
If you aren't great at visualisation, do this on an actual sheet of regular office paper, placed horizontally before you. To the left draw a circle, as large as will fit. In the centre draw a coin sized circle, and to the right draw a small dot. Now, from left to right, label them a, b, c, and write under them Mass = 10X, Mass = X, and Mass = 10X (if you crave precision, write 'not to scale' in one of the corners). If you now imagine that b is our own Sun and a & c are stars, of ten times her mass, at different stages of development in the Milky Way - then what you have before you is absolute proof that stars do not die. Consider the comparative likelihood of the two possible explanations for the difference in volume/density between a & c, which started their lives, after the last Milky Way Big Bang, as identical clouds of gas; 1. a is inexplicably lagging billions of years behind c; or 2. c is on the verge of supernova and in a few hundred years (the blink of a cosmologist's eye) will be indistinguishable from a.
Now download a photograph of the full Moon, have a good look at it, and ask yourself - is that how a hemisphere, in a vacuum, reflects light from a single source? Consider the light (from directly behind the photographer) striking the Moon's edges; what should be little more than a glancing blow (if starlight was inclined to race aimlessly into space) actually results in a 180 degree reversal of its course, and the light from its edges reaches us with the intensity of light striking the Moon dead centre; the only feasible explanation for this is that starlight (direct or reflected) only goes where gravity beckons, and what we see of the Moon is not conventionally reflected light, but rather the overlap of the Earth/Moon gravitational umbilical and the Sun/Moon gravitational umbilical.
If two rays of reflected sunlight departed from points on Venus separated by one degree of arc (forget for a minute about the fact that they are already supposed to be diverging from the centre of the Sun itself and, for ease of understanding, imagine them striking Venus parallel) and one hit the earth dead centre, the second would miss the earth by 0.5 million miles, at Venus's closest point of approach, and 2.8 million miles at her furthest point; and yet the intensity remains constant whether she is 30 or 160 million miles from us.
If there were any truth in the assumption that our Sun radiates her light omnidirectionally; then less than one ten billionth of her energy would be used to nourish her only living offspring (work out the surface area of a sphere of 93 million miles radius and then divide it by the area of a circle of the Earth's diameter) can such inefficiency actually exist in nature, which is super-efficient in every other way? If you look at the Sun (with suitable eye protection of course) you can see, by her Moon-like two dimensional presentation, that we are not feeding on scraps that are diverging from a point 93 million miles away, but rather we are nourished by a concentrated beam; a flood fill of our gravitational umbilical. Sunlight is 'on demand' and the amount received is proportional to gravity & distance from the source; this is why Mars has cooled as the Sun has become denser, and we will cool as she becomes denser still. If she were leaking her light uncontrollably in all directions, how likely does it seem that she would shine for several billion years? Starlight is the life-blood of the universe, and it circulates ONLY through the conduit of gravitational umbilicals. If we could see light from the side, the night sky would look very different but make more sense, as we would be able to see that every star is connected to every other body in the greater universe by a duct of light. If starlight could escape gravity unassisted and proceed aimlessly into space, would a supernova not be little more than a flash?
So how long it takes, for a black hole to recover all of the light that it emitted during the
discharge phase of its cycle, will depend upon its mass, the proximity of other bodies and their mass & density. In the simplest terms - at the instant of supernova a star has an abundance of light, which it then surrenders freely to anything that it shared a gravitational relationship with prior to exploding; then it pulls itself together into ball of ardent liquid and gradually cedes less and less light (as its density increases) until it ends up so dense that it yields no light whatsoever (although larger/denser black holes will still 'see' it). The gravity of the individual, loosely bonded, hydrogen atoms (or sub-atomic particles if you prefer) of the supernova is spent pulling the cloud into a sphere and attracts no light from elsewhere in the universe, then as the star gains density it will gradually start to harvest light from other less dense bodies, the rate increasing proportionally to its ever increasing density. At the instant prior to supernova a black hole will be gaining light at a rate identical to which it loses it in the equal and opposite reaction of the instant following supernova; the final dramatic rush to full light saturation acting as a detonator.
The notion that stars die is preposterous; if the light is eternal and the matter is indestructible it cannot be anything but a cycle.
.jpg.4da67b30ab9bb5b27f4a63fff25283fc.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.47f45bceb5f63a672daddf19063f0021.jpg)